Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Regional Theatres

Paul Farrelly: What steps the Government are taking to support theatre in the regions.

Kim Howells: Following an extensive review of the needs of regional theatre throughout England, the Arts Council of England is, from 1 April this year, investing an additional £12 million in supporting nearly 200 theatre organisations. This figure will rise to £25 million in 2003–04 and after, bringing the total grant-in-aid figure for theatre to £70 million a year.

Paul Farrelly: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps he is aware that the New Victoria theatre in my constituency, a magnificent theatre-in-the-round, is one of the regional organisations to benefit from the largesse of the Arts Council and the Government, with an increase of 50 per cent. over the next three years. Can we expect that commitment to regional arts to continue into the future, silencing those miserable moaners who say that we are doing nothing for the arts outside London?

Kim Howells: As my hon. Friend points out, the figures represent considerable increases in support for the arts, in particular for theatres. I assure him that the need to continue to support the arts, which is such an important part of investment in this country, will continue.

Dari Taylor: In warmly welcoming the Minister's statement, may I ask whether the Arc, Stockton is included in the announcement? Arc was closed last autumn in a most unfortunate way. Will the Arts Council and my right hon. Friend's Department offer safety-net options for theatres that are closed in such an untimely way?

Kim Howells: I understand that the theatre in question is receiving a considerable increase in funding and a good deal of financial help. I am certain that if the case is put to the Arts Council, it will receive sympathetic consideration.

Euro 2008

Angus Robertson: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the Euro 2008 bid.

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed the bid with interested Scottish Ministers at the devolved Administrations sports cabinet on 18 June last week. My right hon. Friend had previously met the Scottish Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport on 18 March to discuss how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport may best support the bid. Officials in my Department have been working closely since then with the Scottish Executive.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure he will join me in welcoming the England football team home following their excellent performances in the World cup in Korea and Japan. Does he agree with me and the majority of people in Scotland that the hosting of a major football competition would have enormous benefits for sport and tourism in Scotland and throughout the rest of these islands? If so, can he assure the House that his Department will give its full and unqualified support for Scotland's joint bid with the Republic of Ireland for the European championships in 2008?

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend confirmed our support to UEFA in April this year, giving a clear indication that the Government gave the guarantees expected by UEFA. We fully support that bid and Ministers have discussed it, but at the end of the day it is a decision for the devolved Administration.

George Foulkes: May I offer my more sincere condolences on England's premature exit from the World cup? Is it not the case that the World cup is a marvellous benefit for the host countries? I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he has done for the joint bid, which has been greatly enhanced by the way in which Ireland performed in the World cup. Does that not show that it was a wise decision for Scotland to go for a joint bid, rather than a sole bid?

Richard Caborn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We will support the joint bid, but as I said, it is a decision for the devolved Administration. The British Government have given a commitment to UEFA, but the decision rests with the Scottish Executive.

Tim Yeo: Has there been a single achievement or action of the Labour Government in the past five years that makes it likely that any part of the United Kingdom will attract a big international sporting event? Last year, Britain became the first developed country in the world to suffer the humiliation of having to renege on its commitment to host the world athletics championships. Last week, the Secretary of State showed her expertise on football by claiming to have kept in touch via text messages with what was happening in England's World cup match against Nigeria, on the day when everyone else in the country knew that we were playing Denmark. Is not the most helpful thing that Ministers could do to assist the Euro 2008 bid to keep their mouths firmly shut?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman's comments about my right hon. Friend are uncharacteristic.
	In the next two or three weeks, one of the largest sporting events in the world, involving 17 disciplines, will be taking place—the Commonwealth games. I think that it will be a huge success for the north-west and for the entire country. A little later this year, the Ryder cup will be taking place. It will be the first team event after the tragic events of 11 September in which we have been involved. We have been helping the organisers of the Ryder cup. Many events are taking place, and it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman keeps harking back to a decision that I believe was taken correctly. It has been acknowledged by international committees that we took the right decision. It has also been acknowledged that it was a courageous decision.

Derek Wyatt: Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the Scottish Executive about England's bid for the rugby World cup in 2007? We shall need Scotland's vote to win that bid.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend raised the issue with me in the Lobby last week. I have made contact and we are exploring how support can be given.

Ofcom Office (Scotland)

Pete Wishart: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the establishment of an Ofcom office in Scotland.

Kim Howells: The Scottish Executive, along with other devolved Administrations, are aware of our proposals for ensuring that the interests of the different parts of the UK are represented within Ofcom, and we have exchanged correspondence on this issue. This includes the proposal that Ofcom should have an office in Scotland.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am not surprised that he is being selective in his account of his recent dealings with the Scottish Executive. Will he confirm that the Scottish First Minister has written twice recently describing his concerns about the lack of representation on the Ofcom board? It seems that there has not been a reply to the second letter for four weeks. Following what can only be described as an unseemly and embarrassing squabble between the Minister's Department and the Scottish Executive, with the Scotland Office also getting involved, we find that what we have in Scotland is some small sub-committee that goes no way to satisfying the concerns of the broadcasting community in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that Scotland is still deprived of a place on the Ofcom board? Does he agree that this can only disadvantage the broadcasting community within Scotland?

Kim Howells: As someone who in the right mood will cross a road for a row, I can usually pick them up when they are around, and I have noticed no squabble between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and anyone in Scotland. The idea is that a small board for Ofcom will react quickly and with energy. The nations and regions of the country will have their interests well represented on the content board.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the weekend the managing director of Scottish Television said that he thought that
	"the way the bill is written at the moment is a very, very good"
	solution
	"for regional broadcasting in the future",
	and that it
	"clearly protects quality and diversity"?
	Is not that the real voice of those in Scotland who are concerned about broadcasting in Scotland? I suggest that my hon. Friend listens to that voice rather than to the negative voices that we have heard from Opposition Members this afternoon.

Kim Howells: I could not agree more. I am glad that I did not answer the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) with the words, "Never believe anything you read in the press."

Boris Johnson: Is Ofcom, whether in England or Scotland, expected in its competition mode to offer any hope to small educational software firms, such as one in my constituency, which are about to find their markets swamped by £150 million worth of BBC educational software? Can anything be done to allay their fears that unfair competition will be practised by the BBC?

Kim Howells: Competition issues are important and fair trade, as it has come to be known in the sector, should properly be practised and policed. I believe that the Office of Comunications Bill, or at least the Communications Bill, when it becomes law, will provide the means to ensure that there is fair competition for everyone who wants to take part in the sector.

Tim Yeo: As the purpose of establishing an Ofcom office in Scotland would presumably be to serve Scottish consumers, will the Minister say whether he considers that those consumers would benefit more if digital terrestrial television offered only free-to-air channels or a mix of free-to-air and pay television channels?

Kim Howells: That is a matter for the regulator, not for Ministers.

Motor Sport

Richard Burden: If she will make a statement on her Department's efforts to promote motor sport in the UK.

Richard Caborn: The promotion of motor sport in the UK is a matter for the Motor Sports Association, the sport's governing body. However, the Government fully support motor sport. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with the MSA, the Department of Trade and Industry and other sporting organisations to raise the profile of motor sport in this country.

Richard Burden: As my right hon. Friend knows, I work with him on motor sport matters. He also knows that within the past week or so, the governing body of motor sport, the FIA, has confirmed that the roadworks and other improvements around Silverstone secure the future for the grand prix this year and, let us hope, for future years as well. I thank my right hon. Friend, other members of the Government and constituency Members on both sides of the House for their efforts to secure that important sporting event in the UK. However, we cannot be complacent about the future. Formula 1 is important, but motor sport goes beyond Formula 1. We all need to do everything we can to nurture a sport in which Britain excels and an industry that is a multi-million-pound showcase for British engineering, high tech and innovation.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. The industry is worth £4.8 billion and directly employs some 40,000 people, so it is very important. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been trying to bring the industry and the sport together, which will make the industry a more potent force on the international scene. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did to make sure that the grand prix takes place at Silverstone. There were some doubts a few months ago, but they have been resolved and, as a result of co-operation across the House and with the motoring organisations, the grand prix will take place at Silverstone on 7 July.

Tim Boswell: As the constituency Member for Silverstone, I associate myself entirely with the questioner and, in this case, with the Minister's response on a matter of great importance for employment in my constituency and the locality and, indeed, the United Kingdom as a whole. Does the Minister agree that the emphasis now should be not on recrimination for anything that went wrong in the past, but on a celebration of the fact that we have got through a difficult time and are determined together to provide an excellent experience in just under a fortnight, on 7 July? We will then use it as the basis not merely for—we hope—a sporting success, but to strengthen an industry which is of great importance in the locality and much more widely across the country.

Richard Caborn: I welcome those remarks and reinforce them by saying that seven of the top 11 Formula 1 teams operate out of the UK, which is extremely important for the supply chain going into that. It is pleasing—even though it came out of a crisis—that the sport and the industry are now meeting. The strength of the totality of sport and industry coming together can only bode well for the future. I hope that in the near future the DTI, the DCMS and others will work closely together in a more formal way to promote the industry internationally as effectively as we can.

James Plaskitt: There are a number of very successful motor sport companies in Warwickshre, and one or two in my constituency. The industry makes an important contribution to the development of automotive technology, but to secure its future it needs to attract young people into it. Colleges of further education have a significant role to play in that respect. May I impress on my right hon. Friend the bid coming forward from Warwickshire college to have such a centre of excellence based there?

Richard Caborn: I have no doubt that many will be saying that. The old saying in engineering is that what happens in Formula 1 today happens in the luxury car market tomorrow and in the volume car market the day after. The Motor Industry Association plays an important role in trying to attract young people into the industry. I know that the MIA works with both higher and further education, and I hope that through the sport we can maximise the industry.

Anne McIntosh: May I, too, pay tribute to motor sports in the United Kingdom? Motor sport is the third most watched sport after the World cup and the summer Olympics. Some 5 million television viewers watched last year's grand prix. The Minister ominously referred to a joint role for his Department and the DTI. Will he be more specific about what role his Department will play and what precisely the Government intend to do to keep the British grand prix going?

Richard Caborn: I hope that what we will demonstrate on 7 July will compel the FIA to ensure that future grands prix will be held in the UK. In terms of the development of the industry, as I said, out of the little crisis that arose, the MSA and the MIA have been working together. The MSA has produced an ambitious development plan that clearly links in with that. We are reflecting on it, and it will then be for the Government to respond and see how we can interface with the industry.

Sport (Young People)

David Heath: What plans she has to encourage involvement in sport by young people in the south-west.

Richard Caborn: The Government are committed to increasing participation by young people throughout the country. My Department is working with the Department for Education and Skills to improve access to and quality of PE, school sport and club links for five to 16-year-olds in all parts of the country. A number of excellent projects are under way in the south-west.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that it is often felt that the priorities of his Department do not entirely recognise the difficulties of access in predominantly rural counties such as those in the west country? Facilities, where there are any, are located further apart and travel can be a real problem. The smaller communities desperately need help to provide equipment, pitches and the wherewithal for sport. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned school sport. Will he encourage inter-school sport, which is so desperately important in developing sport, by helping to find curricular time, helping with transport and simply encouraging schools to engage in what used to be a normal part of the school week?

Richard Caborn: We are putting investment into sports colleges and school sports co-ordinators, but it will be the practitioners on the ground who reflect that. I should like to quote Marie Hunter, head teacher of Penryn college and community school:
	"Our schools sports co-ordinator partnership covers 7 secondary and 67 primary schools in the West of Cornwall. It is making a tremendous impact in encouraging young people to get involved in sport and in the delivery of PE in primary schools. Programme has had a marked effect on sport in the local community and has encouraged partnership working with other agencies".
	I rest my case.

John Greenway: I am sure that the Minister will agree that many young people in rural areas such as the south-west benefit from the community and amateur sports clubs in their areas, as they provide the opportunity of playing team games, which are not always so easily available through schools. Does he agree that the clubs that provide such help and support could do an even better job if they enjoyed mandatory rate relief? Why do the Government think that that welcome help should be available only if clubs become fully fledged charities? If Ministers really believe in them, why cannot rate relief be included in the Government's tax package, as they originally said it would be?

Richard Caborn: On the first step towards bringing charitable status to many clubs, we submitted to every hon. Member the leaflet "Charitable Status and Amateur Sports Clubs". Some 100,000 leaflets were published in the first print a few weeks ago, and we are now having to go into a second print because of the demand. There is real appetite for community and charitable status for amateur sports clubs, and we are working on the issue. Indeed, the performance and innovation unit is considering whether sport should be provided by charity as of right with regard to amateur sports clubs, and we are exploring that possibility. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is distinguished in the world of sport, that his Government were in power for many years, but did not explore the matter at all during their tenure.

Sport (National Lottery Funding)

Vincent Cable: What contributions the sports lottery is making to increasing the community use of schools for sport.

Tessa Jowell: The national lottery is providing £581 million in England through the new opportunities fund and £55 million to the space for sport and the arts scheme for the provision at schools of sports facilities, all of which are available to the community. In addition, the national lottery has awarded £153.5 million to fund 293 school sports facilities in England, all of which are available to the community. Lottery funding for school sports facilities is conditional on community use of those facilities.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the programme, especially the £800,000 that was indicatively allocated to my borough. However, the fact that the money goes through the lottery rather than the Government means that primary schools in particular find it impossible to get access to the money because they have to demonstrate 40 hours a week of community use. Will the Secretary of State try to ensure that that rule is applied flexibly, so that in future more children under 11 have access to sport in their schools?

Tessa Jowell: Because of the inflexibility to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the 40-hours-a-week rule has been waived in recognition of the difficulties that can face small primary schools, but that does not detract from the overriding principle that investment in school sports facilities should also extend and open up opportunities to the community.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution to the provision of resources for sports in schools. Will she take particular note of the former mining areas where the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation used to provide substantial resources and help for schools as regards sports? That has now gone, so resources are needed to maintain the link between communities and sport. The lottery fund could fill that void. Will the Secretary of State give attention to that and help the mining villages to maintain their sports facilities?

Tessa Jowell: I take my hon. Friend's point very seriously. He is right in two respects. It is important to ensure, first, that coalfield communities get their fair share of lottery funds and, secondly, that children in those communities are able to benefit from opportunities to participate in sport. For the first time ever, we have a major programme of investment in sport facilities, amounting to more than £1.1 billion across the United Kingdom, which is linked to the introduction of school sport co-ordinators and primary liaison teachers. That will ensure that every child has the opportunity to enjoy sport both in and out of school. That is good for their academic achievement, improves their health and reduces crime. It is also good for the well-being of communities and the ambitions of the nation as whole.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the England and Wales Cricket Board for the various innovative measures that it has introduced to increase participation in cricket, not only by those in school, but by those in clubs who have left school but are using school facilities? Does she recognise that one of the problems involved in community use of school sports facilities is that although she and her predecessor promised many times to stop the sale of school sports fields, a report for her own Department has shown that the increase in sales of school sports fields, many by Labour-controlled local authorities, increased by 60 per cent. last year? If she could stop that and put sport back into the core curriculum, sports facilities would improve across the board.

Tessa Jowell: First, I pay tribute to the governing bodies that are taking seriously their role in introducing young people to sport and in providing high-quality coaching, so that the great cricketers, great rugby players and, especially at this time, great footballers of today, who are role models for young people, provide the basis of children's aspirations to do as well as they have done.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is, frankly, way wide of the mark. As my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), has made clear, under the previous Tory Government the sale of playing fields was running at about 40 a month, and the only way in which many schools could raise the necessary assets to build laboratories or new classrooms was to sell their playing fields. For the past five years, since 1997, we have tried to reverse that trend, and we have done so with great success. The £1.1 billion going from the lottery into improved facilities is evidence of that.

David Kidney: On the first day of Wimbledon, does my right hon. Friend accept that when I recently launched the new out-of-school-hours courses at Rising Brook high school in Stafford, there was widespread interest by students in the school and youngsters in the surrounding community? [Interruption.] Very good; I shall return the shot later. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way forward is through partnership between the schools, the lottery and the various sports associations if we are to achieve more smash hits in the future?

Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport said, the Commonwealth games are only weeks away in this summer of sport. The governing bodies, including the Lawn Tennis Association, have a vital role in ensuring that they recruit the next generation of young champions for the future.

Nicholas Soames: Let us return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made about playing fields. Does not the Secretary of State agree that although most schools are good at making their facilities more widely available in the community, especially in West Sussex, they can do little about it if the playing fields are sold from under their feet? Despite her protestations, the sale of school playing fields has recently reached record levels. Will she speak to Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and ensure that school playing fields can be sold for housing development only in the most exceptional circumstances, given their importance to the wider community?

Tessa Jowell: It is a pleasure to hold exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across the Floor, but he is talking rubbish about the Government's record. He is trying to conceal the Conservative Government's guilty past, which the Government are trying to rectify for the benefit of children by unprecedented investment in improved sports facilities, including £15 million to improve and upgrade playing field facilities.

Film Industry

Barbara Follett: What measures her Department is taking to support the British film industry.

Kim Howells: In April 2000, we established the Film Council as the Government's strategic lead body for film which, for the first time, brought together responsibility for the film industry, culture and education.

Barbara Follett: What discussions has my hon. Friend held with the Department for Education and Skills about encouraging young people to acquire the skills that they need in today's high-technology film industry?

Kim Howells: We regularly discuss creativity in the classroom with the Department for Education and Skills. We fund the national film and television school directly. Skillset, the sector skills council for the audiovisual industries, and the Film Council are undertaking a joint research project to develop a comprehensive skills strategy for the British film industry. The Film Council's innovative £1 million-a-year "first light" scheme already gives many young people from all social backgrounds the opportunity to make short films.

Nick Harvey: What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of the changes in this year's Budget on film tax relief? Although I acknowledge that there was abuse by people who were producing for television on tiny budgets but claiming large amounts of relief, does the Minister share my anxiety that the effect may be to drive big projects away to eastern European countries and elsewhere? Does he know that the Film Council believes that approximately £250 million-worth of planned projects will move to other countries because of the changes? Will he discuss with the Treasury some other method of directing relief to big, high-value projects? What will be the position of projects that were already on the stocks of studios if they are not allowed to continue under the tax arrangements that were in place when they were agreed and when the contracts were signed?

Kim Howells: The decision as to what is eligible for tax relief is, of course, one for the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, and they must also decide on the implementation of the announcements in the Budget. The Department has been very concerned, however, about the likely effect on future investment in the film industry in this country, and particularly on big inward investment from America. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there was serious abuse of the existing system. Something has certainly gone wrong when episodes of soap operas and even weather forecasts are put forward for tax relief.

Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the British Film Commission and local authorities have made great strides towards working together recently, more could be done to show local authorities the benefits of attracting the film industry into local communities? Should not the film and television industries also do more themselves to make clearer the contribution that they can make to local communities?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is quite clear from working with the tourist sector, for example, that people want to visit film locations. That has become big business, not only in this country but in America and elsewhere. The importance of film, television and the communications media in general is understood by some but not all local authorities, and it can be a big creator of jobs and revenue. I should be interested to hear any suggestions that my hon. Friend has about how we might take that agenda forward.

Louise Ellman: What extra support does the Minister intend to give to film-making in Liverpool? Does he agree that film-making is an important part of economic regeneration, and does he consider that Liverpool's fine track record in filming is a good reason why Liverpool should become the European capital of culture in 2008?

Kim Howells: I certainly cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last suggestion. Responsibility for deciding what part of the money allocated to the Film Council is to be spent in different parts of the country lies, of course, with the Film Council. God forbid that Ministers should start deciding where film money should to be spent, and on what projects.

Arts (National Lottery Funding)

Peter Pike: What discussions she has had with the Arts Council about the distribution of lottery funds for arts projects in the north-west.

Kim Howells: None. The north-west has received more than £175 million in arts lottery funding to date, and it is the second-highest recipient of arts lottery funding of all the British regions.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is a year ago today that Burnley had disturbances on its streets. I am sure that he will agree that art is one means of bringing communities together, as was shown by Artspeak at Burnley Mechanics on Thursday and Friday last week. Does he recognise that Burnley youth theatre has done tremendous work locally to bring the community together? Will he urge members of the Arts Council to go to Burnley, meet members of Burnley youth theatre and ensure that action is taken at an early date to sort out the final few snags in its lottery grant?

Kim Howells: Yes; I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts would have any problem agreeing to my hon. Friend's suggestions. My hon. Friend will be aware that Burnley has received more than £670,000 of lottery funding, which is largely consistent with other districts when considered in terms of per capita spend. I agree entirely with him that spending on the arts is one way of trying to capture the anger and frustration that appear to have expressed themselves in his constituency, and to channel them more constructively.

Bob Spink: For the sake of the north-west, as well as the rest of the country, when will the Minister consider reducing the bureaucracy and increasing the common sense in awarding lottery grants?

Kim Howells: I understand that a number of initiatives are under way to try to reduce the red tape, bureaucracy and time involved in awarding lottery grants. That is a huge task, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. Unprecedented amounts of money have been awarded, not least in the north-west, and they have to be spent properly. The last thing we need is lottery grants being put into projects that prove to be unsustainable and subsequently fail.

Ian Stewart: The recent White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" has been well received in the north-west. It proposes that elected regional assemblies devise and fund strategies for the arts, tourism and sport. Surely the Arts Council's recent centralisation flies in the face of that. Will my hon. Friend consider the issue again?

Kim Howells: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Anyway, as the proposal will not be implemented for at least five years, if any fine tuning is needed we have plenty of time in which to do it.

Patrick McLoughlin: How much of the money awarded to the north-west is underspent?

Kim Howells: I have no idea, but I shall try to find out, and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Public Parks (Sport)

Caroline Flint: If she will make a statement on the use of public parks as a location for open access sports activity.

Richard Caborn: Public parks provide an excellent environment for both formal and informal sport and recreation.
	We recognise the broad range of benefits to be gained from open spaces in terms of health, education and many other parts of our lives. We therefore want to ensure that they are preserved and indeed upgraded, especially for people living in urban areas.

Caroline Flint: Venus and Serena Williams learned tennis on the public courts in their neighbourhood. Given the world of leisure in which we live, I suggest that our parks will be in decline unless we do something. Has the Department taken account of the fact that many parks run by local authorities have no access to funds such as those available to private sports clubs, schools and other bodies mentioned today in answers to questions?

Richard Caborn: That is why the urban White Paper considered the whole question of open spaces. Following the report of the working party on green spaces and sustainable communities, we will incorporate its proposals in the development of sports facilities. I hope they will be reflected in planning policy statement 17, and that there will be a firm link with the £500 million invested in localities through the new opportunities fund. Although it has been given to local education authorities, a precondition of its release is that the facilities it will provide are used by the community.

Mark Field: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the royal parks will remain part of his Department's responsibility for a few more months. Will he try to ensure that the interests of local people are put first when it comes to use of the royal parks, particularly Hyde park, for the increasingly large number of sporting and other events that have beset that public asset in recent years?

Richard Caborn: The royal parks have been used by the public, demonstrably, during the recent jubilee celebrations. Musical events have taken place there. I will, however, reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said when there are discussions about the royal parks.

Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parks play a crucial role in ensuring that young people in particular have access to low-level, non-coaching types of physical activity—that they can simply walk to a local park and play? Is he aware that parish councils play a key role in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, where many such facilities have declined during the past 15 or 20 years? Has he had discussions with parish councils to ensure that they can provide the money that is needed to improve the facilities enough for most people to be able to use them much more regularly?

Richard Caborn: As I have said, a working party has just reported, and we have produced an urban White Paper. We are now trying to bring together open spaces and more formal sports facilities. The fact that they have been kept apart is a weakness in our sport and recreation infrastructure. We need a proper synergy of activity and development, and we shall bring that about in the months ahead. The first step will be the provision of PPS 17 by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department. It will give local authorities directions on planning for sports and open-space facilities.

Wembley National Stadium

Gregory Barker: When she expects the new national stadium at Wembley will be able to stage its first football match.

Tessa Jowell: The Football Association, whose project this is, has made it clear that the construction contract lasts for 39 months. Construction can start as soon as the financing deal is in place. There has been no change to the FA's estimate, which I set out in my statement to the House on 23 May, that it would take up to 10 weeks from signing heads of agreement to reach financial close.
	My officials remain in close contact with the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and good progress is being made by the FA on its commercial negotiations. We will continue to give the FA all the support that it needs to deliver the national stadium at Wembley and to ensure that the public interest in the project is suitably protected.

Gregory Barker: Sadly, on this occasion, despite the heroic efforts of our team, the World cup will not be coming home. However, if the same level of risible skill and effort had been displayed by our England team that has been characteristic of the Government's handling of the national stadium, it would not have made it even to Japan. Can the Secretary of State give the House a firm commitment that we will be in a position for London to bid for the 2014 World cup? Indeed, what comfort can she give the House that this supposedly athletics-capable stadium will be able next year to bid for the 2012 Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: While our team was away competing in the World cup, the heads of agreement on the Wembley deal were signed, evidence that the Wembley project is closer to reality than at any other time in its history, which has lasted about eight years. That is an achievement. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise that progress has been made and that the project has made more progress in the past year than it made in the previous six years.
	In relation to decisions on an Olympic bid, that is a matter for separate discussion with the key interests and governing bodies, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Parish Priests (Recruitment and Retention)

Tim Loughton: What financial measures the Commissioners have recently taken to improve recruitment and retention of parish priests.

Stuart Bell: In terms of recruiting, the ministry division of the Archbishops' Council supports a nationwide network of vocation advisers, who encourage people to consider their vocation to priesthood and other ministries. In terms of retention, in 1999, the Archbishops' Council set up a group to review clergy stipends. Its recommendations include increasing the clergy stipend from its national stipend benchmark of £17,042 to £20,000 from April 2002.

Tim Loughton: Perhaps I should declare an interest as the son of a semi-retired rector. I have attended about six induction services in the past couple of years in my constituency and the interregnums between clergy seem to be getting longer and longer, so clearly we need to do more to encourage more people to come into that office. Can the hon. Gentleman specifically comment on reports that with an annual £11 million shortfall, the Church of England is considering scrapping the final salary pension scheme for clergy as the latest victims of the pension crisis? Can he also comment on the Department of Trade and Industry proposals, apparently reported in the paper last week, to replace God as the employer of clergy and make them subject instead to employment tribunals on earth?

Stuart Bell: On the second question, I am not responsible for the DTI, but we are always interested in looking at the conditions of employment of clergy in relation to trade unions and the rest. It is a matter that the Church keeps constantly under review.
	On pensions, the Church seeks to balance the stipends that are paid to the clergy and the pensions that accrue to them. That is always based on actuarial figures. Comments as to loss or shortfall are mostly speculation and I would not be able to comment.

Andy Reed: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressure placed on existing priests, vicars and rectors when individuals leave and the work load is spread? In my own constituency—and my own parish in particular—we have one vicar covering three parishes, where previously there were two. Do not those increased pressures cause difficulties? What measures can be put in place to ensure that the vast majority of the country is covered, resourced and staffed adequately?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that the number of men and women ordained as deacons and serving in the stipendiary ministry was 295 in 2001 and 313 in 2002. In relation to his question as to how parishes cope, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the lay ministry grows in strength and that there are now 10,000 lay readers serving the Church. That helps to ease the burden on the parishes and the parish priests.

Church Repairs

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on VAT on church repairs.

Stuart Bell: I have received no specific representations recently on the subject of VAT on church repairs.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my ongoing campaign in this regard and, in my view, the totally unsatisfactory response of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in simply making available a grant in lieu of the VAT that churches would be otherwise able to reclaim. Will he confirm that he continues to put pressure on the Treasury to make sure that the administrative burden on the churches is not more than the value of the grant coming back, and that he will continue to campaign for a VAT reduction?

Stuart Bell: I am always grateful for the hon. Lady's assistance in campaigning on the issue. She will know that the Church of England VAT group has worked closely with other faith groups and is represented by the Church's main committee. We have maintained especially close links with the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We will be making strong representations to the Treasury and, through the Treasury, to the EU to ensure that VAT is reduced to 5 per cent. during 2003. We will make all our efforts co-ordinated with Members of Parliament who have an interest and with Members of the European Parliament.

Alan Howarth: It seems to many of us that with his temporary grant scheme to offset the cost of VAT, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided a splendid opportunity to enable repairs to be made to listed places of worship. What steps are being taken by the Church Commissioners—presumably in conjunction with the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage—to ensure that these repairs are carried out to appropriately high standards in terms of materials and workmanship? After all, in the last great phase of repairs to English parish churches, our Victorian forebears—for all their piety and energy—all too often undertook the work in a spirit that subsequent generations have judged to be too clumsy and unfortunate. We do not want to make similar mistakes in our own generation.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In fact, most of the infrastructure of our churches goes back over 100 years, which is why many of them are in disrepair and why repairs are now urgently needed. He will be aware that the setting up of the listed places of worship grant scheme has resulted in a number of payments being made directly to parishes engaged in vital repairs to their listed church buildings. They are grateful for that and I am sure that the standard of workmanship will be higher than in the Victorian era.

Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) has made an important point? Far too often the liturgical fads and fancies of the moment are responsible for a re-ordering of church fabrics that does not exactly enhance them. There seem to be an awful lot of incumbents who are immunised against beauty at birth. Will he bear in mind that it is important that the fabrics that we have inherited are properly safeguarded and maintained?

Stuart Bell: We are going an awful long way from the subject of VAT on church repairs being reduced from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. I am sure that DCMS Ministers sitting on the Front Bench will be most interested in the comments that have been made. It always occurs to me that when we deal with the fabric of our churches and the national heritage, there is a lack of collective spirit. There is great desire to ensure that repairs are done; there is not a great desire to provide the wherewithal. Somehow we must link the two to maintain our national heritage.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Compulsory Voting

James Plaskitt: If the Commission has commissioned research into the effects of introducing compulsory voting.

Alan Beith: I understand that the Commission intends to carry out research into the operation of compulsory voting in other countries. This research project is expected to begin later this year and the results will be published in 2003.

James Plaskitt: Although it is worth conducting research into compulsory voting, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is probably not the solution to falling turnout, because it is incompatible with freedom of choice? Will he concentrate instead on investigating increasing turnout through voluntary processes?

Alan Beith: The commission has said that the main responsibility for increasing turnout in elections must lie with the politicians and parties themselves. It does not regard compulsory voting as the answer to this problem, but it considers it appropriate to carry out research. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views on this subject.

Julian Lewis: It is encouraging to hear that response, but will the right hon. Gentleman go further and say that the franchise implies a degree of responsibility and consideration on the part of the person exercising it? If someone cannot be bothered to vote, they should not be forced to do so.

Alan Beith: I have a similar view, but we probe voters' motives at our peril.

Derek Wyatt: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered compulsory postal voting, and moving polling day from a Thursday to the weekend?

Alan Beith: I have never before heard the suggestion that compulsory voting and postal voting be combined, but I suppose that might follow if compulsory voting were introduced. Changing polling day is precisely the sort of issue that the Electoral Commission considers from time to time, and on which it might at some point make recommendations to Government.

Simon Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one obvious disadvantage of compulsory voting is that it would be not nearly as easy to judge how happy the electorate are with politicians as it is under a system that allows them to choose whether to vote? Is not a bigger priority to concentrate first on making registration—which is already compulsory—work effectively, given that, in many parts of the country, it does not? Should we not also consider providing a financial incentive to vote? Such an incentive might encourage many more people to vote, but it would still leave them the freedom not to do so.

Alan Beith: Later this afternoon, the Electoral Commission Committee will consider increasing the commission's expenditure on raising awareness of the need to register to vote, which the commission regards as particularly important.

National Assembly for Wales Elections

Kevin Brennan: What discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on introducing an all-postal ballot for elections to the National Assembly for Wales.

Alan Beith: There have been no such discussions, but I understand that the commissioners have discussed with the First Minister and his colleagues a range of options for increasing turnout at the Assembly elections in 2003.

Kevin Brennan: Do we not want to encourage maximum possible turnout for elections to a new institution such as the National Assembly? Is it not particularly suited to an all-postal vote, and would not extending that idea to next year's elections ensure a high turnout and thus increase the credibility of the results?

Alan Beith: All-postal voting in the National Assembly elections would require primary legislation. The commission is evaluating the use of all-postal voting in recent local elections, but because of the time needed to make that evaluation, and to introduce primary legislation, it is fairly unlikely that all-postal voting could be introduced in time for the Assembly elections.

Chris Bryant: What special measures the Electoral Commission is considering to ensure access to polling stations in the Welsh Assembly elections.

Alan Beith: The Commission will fund the development and delivery of training for electoral services staff in Wales in advance of the 2003 National Assembly elections. The training programme will address how to ensure access to the electoral process for people with disabilities. Later this year, the Commission will also publish a series of "good practice" handbooks, which will include advice to returning officers on this matter.

Chris Bryant: Are the right hon. Gentleman and the commission aware that many electoral registration officers in Wales are already worried that literally hundreds of polling stations will not meet the legal requirements for disabled access next year? Thousands of people could be disfranchised because of the absence of a local polling station. If the commission will not consider all-postal ballots, will it at least consider requiring local authorities to write to every constituent, suggesting that they might none the less have a postal vote?

Alan Beith: I shall certainly put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the commission, but it should be borne in mind that a long-standing legal requirement exists that, so far as is practical, all electors should have reasonable facilities for voting, and, in particular, that local authorities should designate as polling stations only places that are accessible to disabled voters. Indeed, there is a widespread feeling in the House that every polling station should, if possible, be fully accessible to the disabled. However, when a polling station is changed or removed, local electors can petition against that development, and the Electoral Commission has the power to require the local authority concerned to reinstate the polling station. However, to date no such petitions have been received.

Election Material (Imprints)

Mike Gapes: When the Electoral Commission plan to discuss enforcement of the law relating to imprints on material circulated during election campaigns.

Alan Beith: I understand from the chairman of the commission that it has no such plans. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 does not give the commission an enforcement role as regards imprints on election material, although the Government are required to consult the commission before making regulations relating to imprints. In that context, the commission has encouraged the Government to bring in the new requirements for imprints contained in the Act that were suspended by the Election Publications Act 2001.

Mike Gapes: I am disappointed by that reply. Those of us who have been subjected to the distribution of literature without imprint, have complained and had the matter investigated by the police, have found—as in my case—that the Director of Public Prosecutions says that it is
	"not in the public interest to prosecute".
	That is even though the people responsible have been warned about their future conduct. How can we enforce the law to protect democracy if people can distribute literature with impunity?

Alan Beith: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the experience that he had in his constituency, but such matters of law enforcement are matters for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will—I am sure—be made aware of these exchanges. It is the job of the commission merely to monitor compliance, and it may make recommendations arising from that monitoring.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Conservation

Robert Key: What responsibilities the Church Commissioners have for the (a) Church Heritage Forum, (b) Cathedrals Fabric Commission and (c) Council for the Care of Churches.

Stuart Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I look forward with great interest to his supplementary.

Robert Key: Given that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has halved the cathedral grants this coming year, what representations have the Church Commissioners made to the Chancellor in the public spending round to maintain the cathedral grants at least at their previous level?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue with me. We will make a submission to the Chancellor on that subject. I hope that it will become a Budget submission for consideration at the next Budget.

European Council (Seville)

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Seville on 21 and 22 June. This was the last summit of the successful and very professional Spanish presidency—although, thanks to the World cup, the Spanish President and I unfortunately had more in common than we had originally intended.
	By 2004, the European Union will have welcomed up to 10 new member countries, with more to follow. This is an historic opportunity that the Government welcome. Excellent progress on the timetable has been made under the Spanish presidency, and at Seville we reaffirmed our commitment to complete the negotiations by the end of the year.
	In preparing for a union of 25 member states we need to reform the way we operate. We have agreed a series of measures that will allow us to streamline the Council agenda in order to shorten Council meetings and to make sure that issues decided by specialist Councils are only, exceptionally, put before the European Council.
	We have set a limit on the size of delegations. In order to prepare meetings of the European Council, the General Affairs Council will become a General Affairs and External Relations Council, split into two separate parts with separate meetings, separate agendas and, if member states desire it, different Ministers taking part. We have now opened up Council legislative meetings to the public.
	We have further reduced the number of specialist Councils. There were more than 20 three years ago, and there are 16 now. We will further reduce them to nine, concentrating in one Council the whole of the European Union's agenda of competitiveness, which is at the heart of the economic reform agenda. Our campaign for simpler, better regulation, with proper consultation with business and industry, was endorsed.
	The European Council itself will henceforth set a multi-annual strategic programme for the whole of the European Union for the following three years, with the annual work programme set by the General Affairs Council. This is a significant evolution in the role of member Governments in setting the EU's agenda.
	In a letter to Prime Minister Aznar a month ago, I proposed that at Seville we should give a remit for action to strengthen the EU's borders, including Community funding; make progress on returns to Afghanistan now that normal government is being restored; and benchmark the performance of third countries and use our network of agreements to improve co-operation in handling migration issues.
	Since the Tampere summit we have, across the European Union, introduced tough penalties for people smuggling and people trafficking, and agreed visa security rules and a Europe-wide database for identifying illegal immigrants. We are setting minimum reception conditions for asylum seekers and have established a European refugee fund to help countries, including our own, deal with this problem.
	At Seville, we decided, first, on measures to combat illegal migration, including action on visas, readmission agreements and a repatriation programme, including early returns to Afghanistan. Secondly, this year we agreed to take steps to achieve co-ordinated management of external borders, including joint operations at those borders.
	Legal migration can and does bring real and substantial benefits to countries, including Britain. Our aim is not to prevent legal migration; on the contrary, subject to proper rules, we welcome it. It is to stop illegal immigration and asylum seeking that is not genuine, because that debases the system and harms the interests of the legal immigrant.
	Our aim is also to ensure that the people traffickers, who trade in human misery, cannot exploit weaknesses. We need only look at the success of the joint Anglo-Italian operation in Bosnia to see what can be achieved. There, an airport was being used to transit illegal immigrants into the European Union. Unaccounted arrivals have now been cut by 90 per cent., but we are dealing with clever, organised criminal gangs. If we shut down one route, they come looking for the next. So the third element is about the integration of immigration policy into the Union's relations with third countries based on the following: all new co-operation or association agreements with third countries will have a migration clause and a commitment to readmission; readmission agreements with all relevant countries will be completed as soon as possible; and there will be a systematic review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their co-operation in migration issues.
	A majority of states, including Britain, wanted to go further in hardening the language on third country returns. A minority were concerned that this looked as though we were prepared to harm our development objectives. In the end, the compromise was that, in respect of any new agreement, returns to third countries would be an integral part of the negotiation on all aspects of the agreement.
	In respect of existing agreements, where there is non-co-operation, we reserved the right to adopt any measures or positions in respect of a third country that we decide upon, provided that they are consistent with our contractual commitments and development objectives. I have no doubt that this will now form a key part of our relations with third countries, although the test, of course, will be the practical effect of the measures proposed.
	The world summit on sustainable development meets in Johannesburg in two months' time. We have made clear for the last year our strong commitment to the aims of the summit. Many leaders, including me, will be there. The European Council gave a strong message of support for the policies of sustainable development. We reaffirmed our commitment to breaking down trade barriers, including on agriculture. We called for initiatives at Johannesburg on water, sanitation, energy and health—all top United Kingdom priorities. I urge the House to give this programme its full support.
	The conclusions of the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention to the declaration that we issued on India and Pakistan and to the statement of the Council, which takes note of a national statement by Ireland.
	Finally, we discussed the grave crisis in the middle east. We agreed that there must be an end to the violence so that the Israelis and Palestinians can relaunch the peace process as rapidly as possible. As I have said many times, this must result in a secure Israel recognised by its Arab neighbours and in a viable Palestinian state.
	I repeat my praise of the six months of the Spanish presidency. On economic reform, reform of the Council and the sensitive issues of illegal immigration and asylum, it has made substantial progress. The direction of policy is clear—it is the pace that we need to quicken. However, that is a far cry from where the agenda of reform stood five years ago. For Britain, the policy of constructive engagement is right, it proves itself consistently and, under this Government, it will be maintained.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in condemning the bombings in Spain over the weekend. Violence is no way to advance a political agenda, be it in Europe or the middle east.
	We support the Council's declaration that a lasting solution to the conflict in the middle east must be based on Israel being recognised by its Arab neighbours, feeling secure within its borders and living peacefully alongside a Palestinian state. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for members of the European Union to lend their full support to American efforts to bring about negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians?
	We also welcome the Council declaration on India and Pakistan and the progress that it has made on sustainable development, although the latter message would carry greater conviction if the EU gave more aid to developing countries rather than to aspirant member states.
	None of those things, however, can obscure the underlying message from Seville: that for all the Prime Minister's talk of leading in Europe and winning the argument, he has once again lost the argument and been left behind. He went to Seville seeking an agreement that would penalise countries that failed to co-operate with the fight against illegal immigration—as he and his Foreign Secretary put it. He was supremely confident. Only last week, he stood next to the Prime Minister of Spain and said:
	"I have no doubt . . . we will reach agreement."
	Will the Prime Minister confirm not only that his plan was rebuffed but that the Swedish Prime Minister referred to the idea as stupid, unworkable and "an historic mistake"? Perhaps he had been speaking to the Secretary of State for International Development. The Prime Minister not only failed to carry the rest of Europe with him—he could not even carry his own Cabinet to Europe with him.
	Instead, the Prime Minister has returned with an agreement that supports the principle of setting up an EU border police. Only last Friday, the Foreign Secretary boasted that
	"such is the opposition to the principle of a European Union border police that it will not feature".
	However, yesterday, after the welcome in the final declaration, the EU's Justice Commissioner said that he expected the border force to become a reality within five years. Is that what the Minister for Europe meant when he said yesterday that
	"the truth is we got everything we wanted"?
	I thought that this was supposed to be the post-spin era of the Government.
	I am also sure that the House would be grateful to hear what discussions the Prime Minister held with the Spanish Government on the Gibraltarians' right to a referendum to decide their legal status.
	The Prime Minister tells us that Seville made progress on enlargement of the European Union, but it did not deal with the structural funding issue, and discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy have yet again been postponed. Given that his Minister for Europe maintains that quick reform of the CAP is imperative for enlargement to take place, can the Prime Minister seriously guarantee that negotiations with applicant countries will be completed by the end of this year?
	Does the Prime Minister agree with NATO's supreme commander in Europe when he says that NATO should have primacy over the Euro army and that his deputy should have strategic control over EU-led operations? If the Prime Minister agrees—he has never made that clear—why has he allowed the Euro army to be described as operational when, again, no agreement has been reached on the sharing of military assets with NATO.
	Like all summits, the meeting at Seville will be judged not by the spin of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe, but by what it actually delivers. The reality belies the Prime Minister's usual rhetoric and all the padding that came out of his statement today. For the past five years, he has constantly maintained that he alone could get things done and that he could get things from Europe that it did not want to give—a modern, outward-looking and decentralised Europe and an EU in which Britain maintains control over its own destiny.
	Seville has shown that that is just another piece of shallow spin. The Prime Minister has been isolated on his own asylum proposals. He has been bounced into accepting EU border patrols. Once again, he has failed to get CAP reform on the agenda and he has stood by impotently as NATO's future has yet again been drawn into question. The
	"Government can no longer advance Britain's interests abroad, nor look after them properly at home".—[Official Report, 31 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 781.]
	Those were the Prime Minister's own words in opposition. After last weekend, that is the one prime ministerial soundbite with which the whole country can agree.

Tony Blair: It is in the nature of the position in which the right hon. Gentleman has put the Conservative party that Conservatives have to say that Britain fails in Europe the whole time. That is their position.
	The big difference between now and five years ago is simply this: when we came to power five years ago and went to our first European summit, the agenda was set by somebody else. It is true that we could block certain things, but the general direction of Europe was set by others. The difference now is that the agenda at Seville and at the earlier summit that the Spanish held was set by us. Of course there will be countries that block certain parts of that agenda—that is bound to happen—but the idea that we would now be in a better position if we had pursued the policies of isolation that we had five years ago is absurd.
	The right hon. Gentleman has to say that we achieved none of our objectives at Seville. Let me take the two points that Seville was about. On asylum and immigration policy, the agenda conclusions say that
	"any future cooperation, association or equivalent agreement which the European Union or the European Community concludes with any country should include a clause on joint management of migration flows and on compulsory readmission in the event of illegal immigration."
	With respect, that is precisely what we asked for and what was achieved. It is correct to say that we would have gone further in respect of existing agreements, but it is also the case that, in respect of those agreements that we now conclude with any third country, this is at the heart of the agenda—and that, with respect, is a substantial step forward.
	The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about Council reform, which, again, is hugely important. The fact that the agenda for the EU will now be set by the European Council at intergovernmental level is extremely important for the future of Europe.
	The right hon. Gentleman's comments on the EU border police are, quite simply, wrong. A study has been going on for months in the EU—nothing new was decided on this at Seville—about whether it is right to have European border police, but what he forgets is that, as a result of the protocol negotiated by this Government at Amsterdam, none of that applies to Britain at all, so his point, which is that somehow our police will be supplanted at Dover by European police, is factually wrong. In any event, even those things—

Bernard Jenkin: Are you against the European border police?

Tony Blair: I will explain exactly what I believe. As a result of what we negotiated at Amsterdam, Britain has a complete veto on this. In any event, the proposal on the European border police can be agreed only by unanimity. I am not against such a study being conducted because, when we take new countries into the EU, I do not think it foolish to consider the idea of Europe giving help to countries on our eastern frontier, where a large number of people are coming in illegally as the result of the activities of organised criminal gangs. The only reason why the right hon. Gentleman is against even discussing the idea is that it has the word "European" in it.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman fails, again, to understand that European defence can be undertaken only where we have agreement between the EU and NATO. That is clearly stated in the conclusions, and I believe that, if possible, it is sensible for Europe to try to improve its defence capabilities. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who believes that we should not even engage in European defence, I think the fact that Britain is able to make European defence compatible with NATO is essential for the future best interests of this country.
	Whether it be on economic reform, the euro, asylum and immigration policy or defence, Labour Members believe in engaging constructively, whereas Conservative Members would opt out of the argument altogether. We remember where we were five years ago—opted out of every major debate in Europe, unable to set the agenda and completely isolated—and from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it seems that, if he ever got the chance, he would return us to precisely that position. As I have said on many occasions, that is not the satisfaction of the national interest; it is the betrayal of the national interest.

Charles Kennedy: I think that the Prime Minister would wish to acknowledge that there is a bit of salutary sense in the process leading up to the summit and in its eventual outcome. Among the salutary messages and lessons that emerge are, first, that attempts that advance bilateral fixes between individual member states do not necessarily work, far less deliver; and, secondly, that imposing sanctions and punishments on the poorest nations is not a tenable way forward. In many respects, the language is modified when one compares the vocabulary used by the Government in this country in the run-up to the summit, as opposed to the agreed statement on the outcome of the summit, which pledged
	"a systematic review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their cooperation in migration issues."
	That is a considerably more balanced and tolerant presentation of a serious and complicated issue, which can be adequately addressed, far less resolved, only at a European level. Liberal Democrats certainly subscribe to the view of the Secretary of State for International Development that the earlier approach that was outlined by the Government would be morally repugnant.
	Is this not a good opportunity to make the positive case, in our domestic politics, for long-term, planned immigration? It is economically essential to Britain. We need look only at the demography of our country, for decades and generations ahead, to see that we can learn a lot from the past and that we must plan better for the future. We must not give in to some of the more strident voices on this issue. Over the course of this weekend, Europe has—to coin a phrase—been something of a candid friend to the British Government, and that should be welcomed.
	On the issue of enlargement, which we strongly support, and the intended progress, which is also very much to be welcomed, can the Prime Minister explain how that can be squared when no meaningful decisions have yet been arrived at and, apparently, no substantial discussions have taken place on reform of the common agricultural policy. Surely one must predate the other.
	Greater transparency in the international institutions that govern the European Union is, of course, welcome. On the central issue of the single European currency, however, does the Prime Minister agree that the debate needs to be led in this country? It can be led only by the Prime Minister and the Government, and the absence of a positive lead leaves us in the weakened position in which we saw ourselves as an EU member state last weekend in Spain.

Tony Blair: On the latter point, I am afraid that I simply do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is absolutely correct that we would have gone somewhat further in Seville than other countries, but we were probably in the majority in wanting to do so.
	The point that I was making earlier to Opposition Members was that the difference now is that we set the agenda on economic reform, defence or asylum and immigration—[Interruption.] No, we do not lose it. Of course, one never gets all that one wants, because unanimity applies at European Councils, but each new EU agreement must now contain a migration clause and a readmission clause. In respect of existing agreements, we have a proposal to assess whether those countries are co-operating. If they are not co-operating, we reserve entirely the right to act.
	We made it clear from the very outset, if I may quote from what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, that we should take measures
	"without undermining the need to better focus aid on the reduction of poverty in low income countries".
	We never thought that it was sensible to penalise poor countries and make them poorer, because that would operate against the policy of encouraging them to take action against migration flows. We are saying, however, as we do now in relation to the Cotonou agreement with African and Caribbean countries, and as we have just done in relation to Balkan countries, that the totality of our relationship with those countries whom we are assisting must also include the issue of trafficking in illegal immigrants. That is entirely sensible—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is precisely the proposition that we put.
	In the end, of course, that is not the only thing that we need to do. It is important that we co-operate at the external borders of Europe and also take our own measures here in respect of asylum, because we cannot make those measures count simply through the European Council. The fact is that that agenda now exists. We have made substantial progress on it, and the fact that we do not get everything that we desire does not mean that we get nothing. That is the truth, whether on that issue, on Council reform, or on the other issues.
	People must ask themselves whether we are in a better position trying to set the agenda, as we have done on economic reform, Council reform and asylum and immigration, or whether we should be in the Conservative party's position, which is next door to the exit sign. The idea that we would be in a better position if we were sitting there resolutely hostile to absolutely everything that Europe proposes is absolutely ridiculous.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's point about the euro, we have the right and sensible position. The economic tests have to be passed and, if they are passed, we will put the matter before the British people in a referendum. That is the right position and it distinguishes itself from those people who say that we should join irrespective of the economic conditions—I never know whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's position but, if it is, I disagree with it—and it certainly distinguishes itself from the position of the Conservative party, which is against joining the euro under any circumstances. Conservatives Members may nod their heads at that, but it is a foolish and futile position that is not in the best interests of the country.

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend mentioned the middle east. Are not the terror organisations that mastermind the suicide bombing of civilians totally opposed to any form of peace process, and do they not use religion and politics to carry out those monstrous crimes? Would it not be useful for the Israeli Government to understand—if only from the colonial history of European countries such as ours—that people, such as those in the occupied territories, cannot be ruled against their overwhelming wishes? Israel must understand that it is Israel proper that needs to be defended and not land that it holds on to illegally.

Tony Blair: I understand that, but I also think that we must be aware of the fact that Israel has been subject to terrorist attacks on its civilians in the heart of Israel. Some of those terrorist attacks were undoubtedly organised from the occupied territories, so the problem that Israel has is how to take action against a terrorist threat that comes from the occupied territories without it going into the occupied territories. That is why I think that, in the end, Israel will take security measures and that we must be at least reasonably sympathetic to the fact that any country faced with this number of its citizens being butchered in terrorist attacks would take action. We must be sympathetic to that while saying that the only long-term solution to the problem is to ensure that we have a political process capable of resolving it.
	That political process must be based on the security of Israel and a viable Palestinian state. I continue to think that if, each time there is a terrorist outrage, we scrap all thought of a political process, we hand the keys of the process to the terrorists. That is why we need to understand that Israel will take reprisals, and to condemn totally the terrorist outrages that are happening. However, we also need to do everything that we can—and we will—to try to make sure that a political process gets under way.

John Redwood: Does the Prime Minister agree with those EU Governments who say that a country has to introduce compulsory ID cards if it wishes to be successful in dealing with illegal immigration?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with that. The issue of ID cards must obviously be decided by each country according to its merits. People sometimes say that the reason for the pressure on asylum here is the absence of compulsory ID cards, but let us get some facts straight. First, this country, if we consider it proportionately in terms of population, is in the middle of the pack on asylum applications, and not at the top. Indeed, I think that in terms of overall applications Germany has now outstripped us again. Secondly, the pull factors here are often to do with the strength of the economy, particularly in the south-east.
	The other point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that our asylum applications declined by 11 per cent. in 2001, whereas those in France increased, I think, by 22 per cent. and in Germany by 12 per cent. It is a common European problem. Although ID cards may form part of the solution—he knows the discussions that are going on about them—I do not think that they provide a full answer. One part of the answer is undoubtedly to work with third countries so that—as with Afghanistan, for example—if there is a change in their circumstances, we make sure that the third country illegal nationals are taken back.

George Foulkes: I commend the Prime Minister for his work on tackling illegal immigration, especially the appalling commercial trafficking in human beings. Will he consider seeking a ministerial meeting of the cross-channel commission with France, so that we can speed up the security arrangements at Frethun, which allow illegal immigration to continue and play havoc with our freight exports?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right: it is important to address the problem at a bilateral level with France. That is why the Home Secretary is meeting his opposite number in France—tomorrow, I think—and obviously he will discuss such issues, including security at Frethun.

Peter Tapsell: Did the Prime Minister agree with the leader of the Liberal party when he said that enlargement would be impractical unless there were major changes to the common agricultural policy? Was there agreement at Seville on the major changes in the common agricultural policy necessary to enable countries in central and eastern Europe to join the European Union? If not, why not?

Tony Blair: Because it never was the case that we were going to discuss the common agricultural policy in detail in Seville. It is being discussed by the Agriculture Council, and in the context of the accession negotiations with individual applicant countries. It is very important that we get reform of the common agricultural policy. Indeed, it will be unsustainable without reform, which is the position of this country and many others, including Germany.
	We are under the particular difficulty that any agreement has to be agreed unanimously. Although there is qualified majority voting in the Agriculture Council, that is not the case at the European Council, which is why it is extremely important that we continue to put every pressure we can on other countries, a minority of which are standing out against that reform. However, I would not want to send out a contrary signal on enlargement. The enlargement process has been a big success. We pushed for it, and it would be unfortunate to send out a signal to any applicant country that we intended to hold up the process. At the same time as we pursue the accession negotiations, we have to pursue reform of the common agricultural policy, which is vital.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the discussions on migration and asylum seeking, did the conference discuss why people seek political asylum, what poverty and forms of political oppression they are fleeing from, and what support can be given to the poorest countries in west and east Africa to assist people to have a better standard of life there? Did it also consider the large volume of arms sales by western European countries to many of the poorest and most oppressive regimes around the world, which cause people to flee to Europe in the first place?

Tony Blair: In respect of the latter point, we are making a big push towards conflict resolution in different forums. Part of that is a responsible arms sale policy. On the first part of the question, the Council drew a clear distinction between legal migration and help for genuine asylum seekers, which we support totally and should do more to help, and support for development aid. This country is increasing its development aid budget significantly, and the purpose of part of that money is to reduce the pressures of poverty that cause the migration flows.
	However, it is not inconsistent with that position to be wholly opposed to illegal immigration, and in particular to what comes with it—the trafficking in human beings and the organised crime, and the people who come into the country not on the basis of proper rules and a proper system, but on the basis of who can pay the organised criminal most. That is why it is important for those of us who believe in the potential of legal migration to take the initiative on illegal migration; otherwise, we vacate the field and leave it to extremists who adopt a hard ultra right-wing agenda that is against any form of immigration, as we have seen in certain parts of Europe. That is not right and does not help. It is important to take action on the illegal side so that we can better present the case for legal migration.

Michael Spicer: The Prime Minister told us that there would be no Euro army, and there will be; he told us that there would be no corpus juris, and there will be. Why should we believe what he says about border control and Euro border guards?

Tony Blair: The Conservative party is wrong about the so-called Euro army. Let me explain it again. There is a proposal for Europe to have the capability, where it decides to do so and where NATO is not engaged, to undertake European defence operations for peacekeeping, humanitarian and other limited purposes. That is important, because we cannot be in the position where we are not able to act unless America acts. The proposal is not anti-American. On the contrary, it applies where America, for various reasons—for example, in Macedonia today—decides that it may not want to act. In those circumstances, we should have the capability to act, but in respect of each operation there is a sovereign decision of each country whether to participate.
	There is no question of Britain committing its armed forces to a standing European army. That has never been the proposal. The idea is to have the capability, if we want to use it, for Europe to undertake operations where America does not want to be engaged. I think that that will add a string to our bow, not take one away.
	As for the European border police, if we were the previous Government we would probably have said, "We are not having any discussion of this whatever." Instead, we have entirely secured our own position, because of the protocol at Amsterdam. No one can impose anything on us. We have a complete veto on anything that is agreed. However, I do not think that it is foolish to consider the feasibility—[Interruption.] People should listen to what I am saying instead of shouting out. When we take 10 extra countries into the European Union and when we extend the border of Europe many miles eastward—that is precisely the point, with some of these countries, where illegal people trafficking is happening—I do not think that it is foolish for Europe at least to ask the question whether—[Interruption.] It is not foolish to ask the question whether it is not better that Europe can do something together.
	None of that imposes any obligation on us, but it makes sense. In the end, that is the difference between the attitudes of the two political parties. The Conservative party is in the position where, basically, it wants to oppose what Europe does. We are in the position, for sensible reasons, of taking a completely different approach. That is why there is a difference between us. We believe that it is important to engage constructively, and in that way we are better able to get our own way.

John McFall: Given that France, Portugal and Italy have been given more time to eliminate their budget deficits, is there not a need for us to examine the stability and growth pact with more flexibility? Is it not a good thing to have small public deficits sometimes, if they lead to investment?

Tony Blair: It is necessary to keep the basic principles of the pact because that is important for the stability of the euro. What my hon. Friend says about necessary flexibility to take account of different circumstances is right, and that is our position too.

Teddy Taylor: As the Council unanimously accepted the proposal for the European border police, will the Prime Minister confirm that it was agreed by the members taking part, or spelled out in the conclusions, that Britain's exemption was there, and was legal? Secondly, what was agreed about Gibraltar, which is part of the EU? Will the European police force operate in Gibraltar?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of the position on our protocol agreed at Amsterdam, that is in the treaty. I point out once again that nothing new was agreed on European border police at the Seville summit. A study has been ongoing for about eight months, and that study was referred to in the conclusions. No new position was taken at Seville. For the reasons that I have just described, I think that it is entirely acceptable that a study be undertaken. It imposes no obligation on us. As I have said many times, perhaps especially because of our European relations, it is important for Gibraltar as well as Spain and Britain that we try to reach agreement.

Bill Rammell: I welcome the changes to the workings of the European Council of Ministers, which I think can help to ensure the primacy of elected governments over the unelected Commission. Should we go further and appoint a president of the European Council for a period of up to five years? What progress was made on that issue?

Tony Blair: There are many interesting ongoing discussions, and that is something that will form part of the agenda of the European convention. It is clear that with 25 members it would be foolish for us to continue with the existing rotating six-monthly presidency. I cannot see that that would be in the interests of Europe. It cannot be efficient and it cannot be right. There is increasing recognition in Europe that that is the case.

Ian Taylor: If the Prime Minister had a setback in Seville last weekend, it was because in anticipation, he had over-hyped the claim that he was setting the agenda. Does he accept that it is unlikely that we will really set the agenda until we have joined Europe's biggest project, the euro? Does he accept that unless he goes out and explains to the British people, and some of the journalists who write editorials, it will not be understood that some issues are now European issues that can be solved only at a European level, which therefore override national blockages, just as we overrode a national blockage during the 1980s, when we were opening up the single market? The only way to solve the asylum problem is at a European level. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be critical if we failed the nations that are joining us, and did not help them with their policing of a common border, and with the institutions right across Europe, against traffickers in people who are exploiting their countries as well as ours? [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: They always shout on the Opposition Front Bench, but the comments of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) would strike most people outside as reasonably sensible. Yes, the issue is a European issue, and it is important that we try to deal with it at a European level, for the simple reason that whatever measures we can take in this country, there is a limit to what we can do as one country alone. That is precisely why we put the matter on the agenda. Because of that, a substantial additional element of European policy was decided at Seville. Until now, that did not form a mandatory part of the negotiation with any country of a new co-operation or association agreement. Now that will be the case. In respect of existing agreements, obviously there was a compromise, which I have just outlined. However, it is not the case that no progress was made on that agenda. Progress was made; we would like to have seen more, but if we had not tried to set the agenda we would have got nowhere at all.

Tam Dalyell: Paragraph 14 of the conclusions refers to the European Union taking over from NATO in Macedonia. From the Prime Minister's previous answer, is it not clear that there is a very dangerous situation in Macedonia? What is being done by the Community as a whole to carry out the promise that we thought was made during the bombing, that there should be a rebuilding of the Balkans?

Tony Blair: On the first point, in relation to Macedonia, de facto the Europeans, with a NATO hat on, have undertaken that. The conclusions make it clear that it would be sensible for European defence to do so,
	"provided that the permanent arrangements between the European Union and NATO . . . are then in place."
	That is the complete answer to those who say that that conflicts with NATO; it does not. Yes, it is correct that it was anticipated that European defence could do that.
	In respect of the other point about the Balkans, we are rebuilding the region. In Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia and other places in the Balkans, we are doing an enormous amount of work. A great deal of aid and help is being given to those countries. One of the most exciting prospects for the European Union is the prospect of those countries, which were riven by civil war and ethnic strife, sorting themselves out so that in time—it may take some considerable time, obviously—they can become members of the European Union. Such a project would have seemed impossible a few years ago—and I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that if Milosevic were still in Serbia, it would be well nigh impossible.

John Maples: The Prime Minister has gone through some of the sensible steps that were taken over immigration and asylum at Seville, and of course there is a European dimension to that. However, the vast majority of people in this country would regard it as going much too far to allow a non-British police force answerable to the European Union to operate within the United Kingdom.
	The Prime Minister has muddied the waters a little, as if it had nothing to do with him, but paragraph 31 of the conclusions states that the European Council, of which he has told us he is the leading member—presumably, if he sets the agenda, he has some say over the minutes—welcomes the study that has been carried out on the matter. The Prime Minister implied that he was instituting a study. In the final paragraph of the conclusions, paragraph 39, the European Council—presumably he was still its leading member at that stage—called for a report to be submitted at the June 2003 summit to see how
	"the practical implementation of the guidelines"
	could be put into action. Of course we know that we have a veto, but what we want to hear from him is that there are absolutely no circumstances in which his Government would agree to the operation of a European border police force within the United Kingdom.

Tony Blair: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman why that is the case: the protocol in the Amsterdam treaty that we negotiated makes it clear that nothing can be done without our consent. Therefore, the whole idea of European police taking over from British police at Dover or anywhere else in the UK is fatuous and wrong. [Interruption.] We have no intention of consenting, as we have made it clear that we have the protocol that was negotiated at Amsterdam.
	However, the point that I was making—I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on this—is that the feasibility study is still being carried out; it has not yet been completed. I am not against its being carried out, for the reasons that I have just given. When the new countries are taken into the European Union—true, this is for us, but it is not directed at us, or, indeed, Spain or France—the issue is that when we open up the whole of our eastern European border to them, it is not foolish, although there are other ways of dealing with it, to say that some of those countries on that border will need help with policing their borders. Provided that we have a veto over what happens, which we do—

John Maples: Will you use it?

Tony Blair: I have told the hon. Gentleman already about our position on Britain. In respect of the rest of it, I will listen to what the feasibility study says, because I want to see what arguments there are. I will make up my mind on the arguments. [Interruption.] This is an astonishing thing to hear—apparently I should be saying that I am not going to listen to the arguments, but veto it anyway. With the greatest of respect—and we have just heard this from the Conservative party again—that is the Conservatives' policy: if something has the word "European" in it, we veto it, whether it is good or bad. That is why we ended up with no influence in Europe, and it is a policy that I will not adopt.

Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister will be aware that British customs officials are already working in Bulgaria and Romania, that our police force has already been giving advice to countries in central and eastern Europe, and that other countries, including Germany, are doing the same. Does he agree that if European Union enlargement is to occur and we are to enjoy the benefits of a bigger market and the historic unity of our continent, it is absolutely vital that we can all feel secure that the smuggling of people and drugs through the Balkans has been stopped?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is precisely why it is important that we consider all the potential methods that can help. I have just been reminded of the fact that British policy and passport officers now operate in Paris, at the Gare du Nord. That is not considered a breach of French national sovereignty; it is a sensible arrangement, because we are dealing with a proper problem. We should be looking at whatever works, in order to deal with the problem. If that means greater co-operation in Europe, let us co-operate more in Europe so that we get the problem dealt with.

Andrew MacKay: What is the point in our alleging that we set the agenda, if that agenda is then comprehensively rejected by our partners? Why does the Prime Minister say that Seville was a success for this country, despite the fact that the Anglo-Spanish proposal on immigration and asylum was also rejected? If that was a success, what would he define as a failure?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on the facts, I am afraid. Let me repeat it to him: we made substantial progress at Seville, but as I said, we did not get everything that we wanted. [Interruption.] If he and his colleagues will stop shouting from a sedentary position for a moment, I will explain to them exactly what we got on asylum and immigration. First, we got the agreement that any future co-operation—[Interruption.] They have started again. They are unbelievable; they will not listen.
	First, any future co-operation or accession agreement will contain both a migration clause and a compulsory readmission clause. Secondly, in respect of existing agreements, there is an analysis of whether there is co-operation on illegal immigration or not. Thirdly, if there is a finding that nations are not co-operating, we reserve our right to adopt positions or attitudes in respect of those nations that we can decide upon. In other words, in respect of future agreements, it is completely a part of them that they include migration and readmission clauses. In respect of existing agreements, we reserve our right, once an analysis has been conducted of whether co-operation is taking place. In addition, we have immeasurably strengthened the whole issue of joint border co-operation on the visa and security regime and action on the illegal smuggling of people. I agree that that is not the sole answer to the problem, but it is absurd in these circumstances to say that we have got nothing.
	As regards the other part of the agenda coming from this country, which is the Anglo-Spanish proposal—or rather, the Anglo-German proposal—on Council reform, the bulk of that was agreed by the Council. The point about setting the agenda in Europe is that one never achieves everything that one wants; the question is whether one achieves some of it. In this case, we have.
	In other areas, too—economic reform, for example—we need to go far further, but at long last the whole agenda and policy direction is in favour of reform. Yes, we need to do more, but would we be in a better position if we were isolated, without any influence, simply sitting there letting others determine the agenda and saying no? The answer to that is obvious. That is where we were when we took over five and a half years ago, and it was a disaster for this country.

Joyce Quin: The Prime Minister stressed the benefits of legal migration and proper procedures for asylum seekers, which I support. The countries that have had the greatest burden have been those immediately adjacent to crisis areas, whether Pakistan in the case of Afghanistan or, at an earlier stage, the African countries that surrounded the area where the Rwandan genocide took place. Is it not therefore important, if not vital, for the European Union to be able to take immediate long-term measures on aid for those countries to help them to tackle such issues in a compassionate and humane way?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what we have done as regards the agreement on the Balkans, for example. That is a classic example of using the totality of our relationship with those Balkan countries to insist that we will help them to deal with migration flows, but they have a responsibility to respond to that help.
	On Afghanistan, it is worth pointing out that 1 million Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the conflict took place, many of them from neighbouring states. We are entering into agreements with the new Afghan Government so that Afghans who have claimed asylum and no longer need it owing to the change of Government can return to their country. We have to engage with the issue systematically.
	It is also worth pointing out that this, too, is not a problem for Europe alone; it is a problem all over the developed world, including in countries such as America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We must obviously take measures here, but, as my right hon. Friend says, we must also ensure that where there is a crisis and a migratory flow erupts as a result, we put in place the right system of measures on aid and assistance to stop it.

David Burnside: The Prime Minister has been fulsome in his praise of the Spanish presidency. In his private moments discussing football, no doubt his Spanish host remarked that the referee in the last Spanish game abused his position at least once, if not twice. Did the Prime Minister point out that in the six months of the Spanish presidency, they abused their position as regards fisheries policy, further to the detriment of the British fishing fleet?

Tony Blair: The Spanish have not succeeded in the aim attributed to them in media reports, and we can and will ensure that they cannot. I think that on balance the totality of the Spanish presidency has been successful.

Gwyn Prosser: My constituents in Dover are more familiar than most with the Dublin convention and the bilateral agreement with the French. What progress has my right hon. Friend made towards allowing us to send asylum shoppers back to the safe countries through which they have passed?

Tony Blair: As I should have said in answer to another question a moment ago, another matter that we agreed was a set of timelines on action, including the negotiation of Dublin II by the end of this year. We must ensure that that timetable does not slip, as it has before. Better ordering of the procedures under the Dublin convention is essential, because what happens to Britain in particular is that people go through what are effectively safe third countries, then end up here when they could easily have claimed asylum in the safe country through which they passed. Tough negotiating will be necessary before Dublin II is agreed, but at least we have a firm mandate and we have set out a timetable in the Council conclusions.

Angus Robertson: To which specific suggestions by the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Executive or the Northern Irish Executive did the Prime Minister give voice at the Seville summit? For example, did he raise the point that my colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) made about the common fisheries policy and the way in which Spain handled it? Yes or no? Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to commend President Chirac of France and Prime Minister Persson of Sweden for blocking a morally repugnant proposal to tie aid for developing countries to their immigration policies?

Tony Blair: There was the usual consultation with the devolved Administrations about the full range of Council issues. The Spanish presidency is of the European Council; we raise matters such as the CFP in our bilateral discussions with Spain. There were no bilateral discussions at the Council between the Spanish Prime Minister and me, but they do happen on many occasions.

Keith Vaz: The House will welcome the positive steps at Seville towards a more transparent and efficient European Council. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that the Government will continue to take the lead on reform until all the points mentioned in his letter to Chancellor Schroder and all Javier Solana's proposals have been implemented in full? We have made enormous progress, but much remains to be done.

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right, and he played a part in pushing the reform agenda forward when he was Minister for Europe. Most European countries basically accept it. Germany and the United Kingdom are not traditional allies on Council or European institutional reform, but the fact that we were able to combine and make joint proposals is a great step forward. The European Council works through unanimity; forming alliances and gaining agreement is therefore the only way to get any proposal through. That is right, and I am sure that we will continue to press for all the reforms. A big part of the European reform agenda must be making the European system work better and more accountably.

Roger Gale: The Prime Minister has had ample opportunity this weekend to discuss with other European Ministers matters that are of general concern to the people of the United Kingdom, and are of especial concern, for obvious reasons, to the people of east Kent. He claimed that the discussions were successful. When may we expect rail freight to resume through the channel tunnel, in compliance with European regulation? When will the Government try to enforce the Sangatte agreement? It was signed after the Dublin convention, and permits the return of illegal migrants who use the channel tunnel. When does the Prime Minister expect the Red Cross centre at Sangatte to close?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues keep mentioning the agreement under which we were entitled to return people to France. As a result of the Conservative Government's negotiations, the agreement lapsed when the Dublin convention came into force.

Roger Gale: It was signed afterwards.

Tony Blair: It is correct that it was signed after the Dublin convention, but a specific term of the agreement provided that it should lapse when the Dublin convention came into force—in October 1997, I think, from memory. Consequently we have to renegotiate with the French, and we are doing that. I believe that we shall make progress on that and on Frethun, but it will be easier to do so in the context of European action.
	I did not say that we gained all our objectives at Seville; I said that we gained many of them. We also made sure that the issue was on the agenda much more clearly.

Roger Gale: Rail freight?

Tony Blair: That depends on reaching agreement about Frethun. I am reasonably optimistic about that, but it must be negotiated with the French. That is why the Home Secretary is meeting his French counterpart—tomorrow, I believe.

Tom Clarke: I welcome what the Prime Minister said about sustainable development and the forthcoming talks in Johannesburg. Does he agree that the lesson of last week's mass peaceful lobby of this place was that we can make more progress by being objective in presenting our views on, for example, falling commodity prices and unfair subsidies, than by simply carping from the sidelines?

Tony Blair: If international agreements require unanimity, we can block an agenda set by others. We cannot, however, gain our own position in any way other than by getting the agreement of others, which is why constructive engagement is so manifestly the right policy. My right hon. Friend's comments on trade issues are absolutely right. It would bring great shame on the developed world if we did not take significant action to open up our markets further to the goods of the poorest countries in the world. Access to our markets is what they need—possibly as much as, and sometimes more than, aid.

EXPORT CONTROL BILL (PROGRAMME No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Export Control Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th July 2001:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) three hours after their commencement.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely Nos. 1, 17, 10, 2 to 9, 11 to 16 and 18 to 30.

Subsequent proceedings

3. The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Export Control Bill

Lords amendments considered.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the point of order in a moment. Before the House considers the Lords amendments, I wish to draw its attention to an error on the amendment paper. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17 should read:
	"Line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 18",
	not "line 17".

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your leniency. Amendments were tabled in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends that expressed a certain position that had been debated previously in the House, and was the subject of an early-day motion with 300 signatories.

Ann Clwyd: Three hundred and ten signatories.

John McDonnell: I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me. I accept that those amendments have not been selected today, and that the Speaker has no responsibility to provide reasons for not selecting them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you none the less take back to him the view that there may well be a case for the publication of the advice provided to the Speaker on amendments, so that we can have transparency and openness and, perhaps, increased accountability about the selection of amendments process?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman knows well how the House deals with these matters, and that it is not possible for me to comment on the selection of today's amendments. He has, however, put his thoughts on record for everyone to see and to read.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Export controls

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

Nigel Griffiths: Given that the issues raised by amendments Nos. 1 and 17 to 19, and amendment (a) to amendment No. 17, are so closely related, it is sensible to address these amendments as a whole. I will, of course, explain the Government's position on each amendment, and explain why the Government propose to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 17, then amendment No. 17 as amended, and to agree with amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Indeed, I should add that amendment No. 1 covers ground very similar to the part of amendment No. 17 that we are proposing to change. As a result, when I discuss the unfortunate consequences of subsection 4 of amendment No. 17 as it stands, the House can take it that amendment No. 1 would have similar consequences.
	This may sound a little complicated, but what I am proposing is in fact quite simple. I am asking the House to support the Government's original amendment to the Bill made in the House of Lords, through which the Government responded to concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about the issues of guidance and of sustainable development.
	I will explain in a moment why we think the House should disagree with Lords amendment No. 1 and support amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17. First, however, let me explain why the Government want to replace former clauses 7 and 8, which are now Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, with Lords amendment No. 17, as amended.
	Former clauses 7 and 8 governed the operation of the export licensing process. They enabled the Government to publish guidance about matters to which regard might be had in the making of export licensing decisions, and the reasons that might be thought to justify particular decisions. The measure that replaces clauses 7 and 8 has a similar function, but we have made two significant changes.
	Although we have no doubt that under the Bill as it left the House of Commons it would be possible for the Government to reject an export licence application solely on sustainable development grounds, the Government were very much aware of the depth of concern. We have addressed that concern first by strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill, and secondly by putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development in the licensing process, together with all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule.
	First, let me explain how we propose to strengthen the role played by guidance under the Bill. The House will be well aware that the Government have always intended the important role currently played by the consolidated criteria announced to Parliament on 26 October 2000 to continue after the Bill becomes law. That is why clause 8 contained a reference to the consolidated criteria, and a similar reference is in the proposed new clause. The new clause, however, significantly strengthens the role played by the criteria under the Bill by making it a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed in the exercise of licensing powers, and by stating that the consolidated criteria constitute such guidance on general principles. The change will also ensure that if any Government in future wish to change the general principles on which the export control regime operates, they will be obliged to issue guidance stating what the new principles are, and to lay it before Parliament.
	I am sure Members will agree that the changes are beneficial to the Bill, and I hope they will support Lords amendment No. 17 as amended and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

Tony Worthington: Why was the Bill turned upside down as a result of our worries? Why did my hon. Friend not respond by simply reinserting "sustainable development" in the schedule, which is where it was in the draft Bill?

Nigel Griffiths: That was discussed fully in the House of Lords. "Sustainable development" is now on the face of the Bill, which is what was recommended by my hon. Friend and others. We think that that is the right place for it, as does Lord Scott, who did not want it to be in the schedule.
	Let me now explain why the Government believe the House should agree to the Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 17 and oppose amendment No. 1. The Government's original amendment, represented by amendment (a), introduced important changes. We proposed to make the reference to sustainable development explicit by including the text in amendment (a). The fact that that addition to the Bill has much more than merely symbolic significance is demonstrated by the Government's proposal to amend the Bill to say that future Secretaries of State must give guidance about
	"the consideration (if any) to be given",
	in the exercise of licensing powers, to issues related to sustainable development and to all the issues listed in the table in the schedule. Taken together with the change that I have already described, which will make it a requirement for the Government to issue guidance, amendment (a) will ensure that all future Governments are required to issue guidance on how they propose to consider sustainable development and all the relevant consequences listed in the schedule when exercising their licensing powers. The only way to change that would be by primary legislation.

Roger Berry: Can my hon. Friend explain why the wording that the Government propose in their amendment is superior to the wording in the Lords amendment?

Nigel Griffiths: The Lords amendment opens up an unfortunate loophole in terms of what its consequences would be, which I will come to in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me. I will give way to him again if he wishes to pursue the point.
	Liberal Democrat Members were concerned that the words in the amendment "if any" might allow a future Government simply to decide to ignore such important issues as sustainable development when considering export licence applications. I do not share their concern, but I do share their aim, which is why we tabled our original amendment.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) may still have some concerns. Perhaps he will still assert, as his colleagues in the House of Lords have asserted, that the Government's wording would allow a future Government simply to ignore relevant sustainable development issues. That is not so. I can assure the House that under the Government's original proposal, now represented by amendment (a), it would not be possible for a future Government simply to decide to ignore sustainable development or any of the schedule table issues by saying, "We have considered sustainable development and concluded that it has no place in the consideration of export licences." That would not meet the requirements of the clause proposed by the Government.

Ann Clwyd: Since my hon. Friend prays Lord Scott in aid, does he also agree that Lord Scott is in favour of prior parliamentary scrutiny, a matter that the Government have obviously turned their face against?

Nigel Griffiths: I am not sure that it is quite as straightforward as my hon. Friend states. Unfortunately, this debate is not about prior parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that measures on that were not ruled by the Speaker to be competent for debate today.
	I have explained to the Opposition, and it was explained to the Opposition in the House of Lords, not only that their concern on this issue was unnecessary, but that what they have proposed instead would be profoundly damaging. Let me explain that in the light of the question that was put to me earlier.
	In the House of Lords, it was explained that under the EU code of conduct and under the UK's consolidated criteria on arms exports, the Government have pledged that the criteria—I quote from the criteria here—
	"will not be applied mechanistically but on a case by case basis using judgement and commonsense".
	The effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be to make it impossible for the Government to use the judgment and common sense that we have promised to use.
	All Governments need to be able to take justifiable—my emphasis on the word "justifiable" is deliberate—decisions that there is no need for sustainable development or indeed any of the other schedule consequences to be considered in certain cases. I believe that it is common ground in the House today that there are export licensing cases where it would not be relevant or appropriate to consider sustainable development: for example, the export of a single military vehicle to a developed country such as Canada. The same would be true of any relevant consequences. For example, it would not be relevant or appropriate to consider the regional stability implications of the export of a single parachute to France. I assure the House that even exports of single items still require consideration if the export is of licensable goods.
	The effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be to impose a straitjacket on the administrative regime, forcing Government Departments to give some consideration to sustainable development and to every single schedule table implication of every single export, no matter how irrelevant certain implications might be either to individual exports or to categories of exports.

Norman Lamb: Is it not the case that if the Government have their way, all they will have to do is consider the issue of sustainable development and, if they see fit, reject that criteria and move ahead to grant an export licence? Has that not happened under the existing consolidated criteria, with the authorising of a licence for the purchase of the air traffic control system for Tanzania?

Nigel Griffiths: It is not true to say that Ministers could take a cursory look at sustainable development issues and then move on to grant a licence, or not, as the case may be. They must consider sustainable development implications and show that they have done so if there is any future inquiry or appeal against a decision. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has accurately summed up how this matter will be handled.

Roger Berry: I am trying to get to grips with why the Lords amendments should be changed. They refer specifically to guidance stating that regard should be had to issues relating to sustainable development. Why could not that guidance specifically exclude, for example, certain exports to certain countries? I do not see what is wrong with the Lords amendments at all if the guidance is appropriate.

Nigel Griffiths: Let me clarify it for my hon. Friend. Earlier, I mentioned a loophole; I should have made it clear that the amendments would make it impossible for the Government to give effect to certain international agreements according to their actual terms. These are the even more serious and damaging effects of the amendments, which would impose a brand new duty on the Government that could conflict with the Government's existing commitment—given to this House and to our European partners—to consider all strategic export licence applications against the consolidated criteria. This new duty would also take precedence over the EU code of conduct on arms exports, thus potentially requiring us to take an approach to licensing decisions within the UK different from that adopted in the rest of the EU.

Jenny Tonge: For clarification, will the Minister define exactly what he means by sustainable development?

Nigel Griffiths: Sustainable development is fairly clearly set out in our documents and is detailed in the annual report in terms of any licences that are granted or refused. There is no secret about how the Government analyse and assess sustainable development. The problem that we have with the amendments is that they would give us the obligation of a higher legal status than the consolidated criteria and the EU code. That would put us out of step with our EU partners and possibly make it impossible for the UK to abide by the EU code. That is the effect of amendments Nos. 1 and 17, unamended.

Tony Worthington: I was interested to hear the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). He said that what sustainable development would mean would be clear from the occasions when sustainable development was the ground upon which an export had been turned down. My information is that no export has ever been turned down on the ground of sustainable development.

Nigel Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong, and I hope to put on the record the number of such cases before the end of today's proceedings.

Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the acid test for the Bill, and for the efficacy of the various amendments, is simply this: is the Minister saying that, under the Bill as it stands, the Tanzanian air traffic control system export would not happen again?

Nigel Griffiths: Each future case will be considered according to the available criteria and the prevailing circumstances. Ministers will take decisions on such cases and justify them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Griffiths: Such decisions are published in the annual report—another innovation that the Bill will establish as a permanent and necessary requirement.

Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend is offering to look retrospectively at licensing, but such a facility already exists. Our point is that it is no good having a retrospective look; we want prior scrutiny of contentious arms licences.

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend argues for prior parliamentary scrutiny, but she has not convinced me that a workable system exists; indeed, since I last came to the Dispatch Box my view was reinforced during a visit to Washington. The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee was critical of the prior scrutiny regimes in Sweden and in Washington, and I fully understand those criticisms.

Julia Drown: The Minister said that the Lords amendment could be inconsistent with the European code of conduct on arms. Can he give an example of such an inconsistency, because it is not obvious?

Nigel Griffiths: I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend or to the House, but I am reluctant to pluck hypothetical examples from the air. Our legal advice is clear: if the amendment were accepted, the new duty would take precedence over the EU code of conduct on arms exports. For the UK to take an approach to licensing decisions that differs from that taken in the rest of the EU would be highly damaging to the establishment not just of a concerted, EU approach to licensing arms, but to an international approach that ensures that we are controlling as best we possibly can the export of arms and related technology. We must also recognise that, if unamended, the amendments would have other effects.

John McDonnell: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Lords amendment is unacceptable because it conflicts with prior commitments given at a European level, and that European agreements that we have entered into prevent us from taking sustainability into account in considering individual licence applications? If so, the entire debate on sustainable development being taken into account—in whatever form—under this legislation has been completely futile.

Nigel Griffiths: No, I was not saying that. I was saying that the amendments could mean that we had criteria different from those that operate under the EU code of conduct, and that is what we are trying to avoid. I did not go into specifics because I did not want to pick up on a hypothetical case.

Hugh Bayley: If the Minister wants to convince me that we should modify Lords amendment No. 17, he will need to convince me that the way in which the Government will determine whether sustainable development would be undermined or compromised by an arms export is rigorously defined. Do the Government intend to set out defined criteria in the public domain against which they will decide whether a particular arms export would compromise sustainable development? In other words, the Government need to go further than simply saying in general terms that they will exercise their judgment.
	For instance, will the Government examine, as a test of sustainability, whether a particular export offers value for money or entails "productive expenditure"—to use a phrase from the rules of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—for a developing country? Those of us who have considered the Tanzanian case would say that it would not be termed a sustainable export if measured against value-for-money criteria or against—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Nigel Griffiths: The clearest way to answer my hon. Friend is by reference to the annual report, to which I referred hon. Members earlier. Criterion No. 8 in the report makes clear the need for the compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defence with the least diversion into armaments of human and economic resources. Subsequent paragraphs spell out clearly the approach that Ministers take—and under the Bill must take—when carrying out that assessment. That is the important point that we need to make about the amendments.

Hugh Bayley: Will the Government publish a list of criteria that they will use in deciding whether sustainability is compromised? A set of such criteria is used in relation to export credits guarantees. Will the Government provide a similar list in relation to arms exports?

Nigel Griffiths: The report makes the position clear, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will read it. There is a list of factors that are taken into account, including information from sources such as the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country will also be taken into account. I am sure that the House will accept that the answer will vary from country to country, depending on the level of development and the size of purchase proposed when the granting of a licence is considered.
	The report also makes the other criteria clear and gives a clear description of what is taken into account and, by its absence, what is not. I am not sure that we would want anyone to add anything that is not already in the report. However, if my hon. Friend has a suggestion to add, the House will listen with interest.

Gregory Barker: I, for one, believe that sustainable development should be at the heart of all Government policy making. Nevertheless, is the Minister aware that numerous small arms manufacturers such as Manroy Engineering Ltd. in my constituency, which employs 40 people, will welcome the fact that he rejects prior parliamentary scrutiny? In rejecting the Liberal Democrat amendments, was any assessment made on the likely impact on job losses that would arise, given that, in certain cases, many small firms must already wait up to a year for the issue of a licence?

Nigel Griffiths: No one has raised the implication for jobs with me; I have read no briefings about it and have not discussed it with ministerial colleagues or anyone else. I am concerned that the Bill provides for the proper scrutiny of licences and an effective regime to avoid the pitfalls that are highlighted by Lord Scott and others. I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, although I recognise that he is voicing the concerns of his constituents and the defence manufacturer associations.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister referred to the criteria in the annual report. What effect, in reality, did the World Bank report on the Tanzania contract have?

Nigel Griffiths: I am afraid that I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question.

Elfyn Llwyd: What effect did the report by the World Bank, which was heavily against the export of the air traffic control system to Tanzania, have on the decision to export?

Nigel Griffiths: I am not going into detail about the considerations that were made; I am simply justifying the Government's position on the amendments and the effect of the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is a matter for the Government of Tanzania.
	I disagree with Lords amendment No. 1 because I am keen to avoid a costly mechanism that would oblige us to consider every issue in every case, whether it was relevant or not. At best, that could lead to confusion about taking particular licensing decisions, which could slow down the export licensing process and make it impossible for the United Kingdom to give effect to future international obligations according to their terms.
	I do not believe that any of this is necessary. If it is the wish of the House that a future Government should not be able to choose to ignore issues such as sustainable development and human rights, the Government share that wish. That is why I want to assure the House once again that Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17 would not allow future Governments to ignore these important issues. The Government published a list of criteria in October 2000, setting out their position in detail. I hope that that helps answer the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley).
	In conclusion, I urge the House to achieve our common goal and avoid the unnecessary and damaging effects of Lords amendment No. 1. I urge the House to support amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17 and amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

Robert Key: This is an extraordinarily important debate. I am conscious of the fact that we have only three hours in which to debate all the business this afternoon; I will therefore be brief, as we have many concerns to raise on the next group of amendments on academic freedom.
	Let me say first what an extraordinarily successful exercise has been carried out by a large number of organisations and by the Quadripartite Committee, whose contribution has been extremely important in informing the judgment of the House. The Select Committee on International Development has also taken a very proactive role. I am very grateful for all that and for the briefing. Everyone who has spoken today—and most Labour Members present have already spoken—has expressed opinions that reflect the passionate concern of many thousands of people who care deeply about the state of millions of the most vulnerable people in the world.
	As the right reverend prelate, the Lord Bishop of Manchester said in another place:
	"If we are serious about halving world poverty, we need to strengthen our legislation regarding what should and should not be exported and imported, taking into account the purposes and outcomes of such exports and the consequences of granting licences for them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 2002; Vol. 633, c. 1099.]
	The House may recall that during Third Reading, I said:
	"The House is owed an explanation of why the Government left out the paragraph on sustainable development from the table to the schedule."—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 414.]
	On that occasion, the Minister stubbornly, and quite inexplicably, refused to give a rational explanation. He could have done so, but he failed to and that misjudgment had consequences: the official Opposition voted in favour of the amendment, when we might have abstained; and, in the other place, the Under-Secretary of State caused months of trouble for the Government, ending in their defeat on the issue on 18 April. Today, we are considering the Government's attempt to reverse that defeat.
	I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon and other noble Friends for their persistence in harrying the Government. The quality of the argument in another place is often said to reflect favourably the time available for debate. It is certainly true that if Ministers fail to win the arguments, they may fail to win the votes—something that regrettably rarely happens in this place.
	Since the Bill left us last November, several things have happened. First, as a direct result of the pressure on the Government, I was told in answer to a parliamentary question that the Cabinet Office was working with
	"all Government Departments with an interest"—
	to address—
	"the need for clearer procedures for reaching decisions where sustainable development is an issue".
	The Minister pointed out that the Government would be discussing procedures on how criterion 8—on sustainable development—of the consolidated criteria could
	"most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications."—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 467W.]
	That is an extremely important point and I wish that the Minister had dwelt on it during report and Third Reading.
	Criterion 8 of the consolidated European Union and British codes sets out exactly how the process will be governed. It states:
	"The Government will take into account, in the light of information from relevant sources such as United Nations Development Programme, World bank, IMF and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports, whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.
	The Government will consider in this context the recipient country's relative levels of military and social expenditure, taking into account also any EU or bilateral aid, and its public finances, balance of payments, external debt, economic and social development and any IMF or World bank-sponsored economic reform programme."
	That says much more than either the Lords amendment or any of the other amendments proposed so far.
	As the Government said in another place that it was "absolutely mandatory"—I think those were the words of the Under-Secretary, Lord Sainsbury—for them to consider sustainable development where it was relevant to the export concerned, their reconsideration of how criterion 8 can most effectively be applied is a step forward. We welcome that.
	We, too, have gone back to the beginning—to assess how the Bill and this debate measure up to the recommendations of the Scott report. In dealing with the question of the processing of export licensing applications, Lord Scott said that they should be processed
	"expeditiously and with fairness to exporters".
	We should not ignore the consequences of changing the wording of the Bill. We have been advised that it would have the effect—as the Minister has confirmed—of requiring the Government to consider sustainable development and every other issue covered by the table to the schedule whenever they exercise their licensing powers under the Bill. So the Government would have to consider every export covered by the schedule even if the implication is that that is clearly irrelevant to individual licence applications or categories of exports. The practical effect would be that all licence applications would have to be systematically assessed against all the consolidated criteria. That would be bound to cause substantial delay, to the detriment of the legitimate interests of the exporters and their employees, but would the delay be significant and what would be the impact on public finances?
	It is has been assessed that, if the amendment stands, the number of export licences processed by the Department for International Development will increase from about 600 a year to 15,000. The Department currently employs 1.5 people to process existing applications, so there would be a 2,500 per cent. increase in the Department's work load in that respect. That would clearly have substantial work force implications, which would be amplified right across Whitehall. Only the Government can decide if that is acceptable and, furthermore, whether the Chancellor will pay.

Roger Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell the House the source of those statistics, which come as a surprise to some of us?

Robert Key: Yes, they come from a number of academics and the Defence Manufacturers Association. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "Ah", but government is not just about listening to only one argument; all the arguments have to be listened to, which is precisely what we have done.
	The Government are now floundering in a mess of their own making when it comes to sustainable development. They have listened and acted on concerns about the application of criterion 8 across Departments. We are concerned that, on reflection, the amendment goes much further than Lord Scott intended, so we will not seek to frustrate the Government's will in this matter.

Roger Berry: I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for arranging a meeting with himself and officials after the debates on Report. A number of my colleagues and I had the opportunity to discuss sustainable development with him and how it might be dealt with in the Bill. I should like to thank him, first and foremost, for that opportunity. This is indeed an historic Bill, and I passionately support 99 per cent. of it. I also congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on ensuring that sustainable development has been included in the Bill. That is very welcome indeed. However, I confess to being at a total loss as to why the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords Amendment No. 17, and I shall explain why very simply.
	Lords Amendment No. 17 is very clear. It states:
	"guidance . . . must state that regard shall be had . . . to . . . issues relating to sustainable development".
	The Government want to remove that and to replace it with the words:
	"guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given"
	to issues that relate to sustainable development. I have two problems with that, and I am clearly not in a minority of hon. Members in having that view. The first problem is that, pretty obviously, "to have regard to", as in Lords Amendment No. 17, constitutes a stronger obligation than the duty "to give consideration to", as in Government amendment (a).
	At first blush, there seems to be an open and closed case that the Government are weakening the duty. However, the second and perhaps even greater problem is the inclusion of the phrase "if any", so a future Secretary of State could simply ignore sustainable development when issuing guidance on export licensing by the simple device that he or she would be required only to include
	"guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given."
	May I please emphasise that I do not suggest that the current Secretary of State would do that? I might be in enough trouble in a minute, so I shall not dig myself into that one as well, but a future Secretary of State could say, "No, I do not think that consideration should be given". It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Minister has said this afternoon that the Government do not want that to happen, but I simply do not understand why the Government want to include amendment (a).
	My hon. Friend suggested that the Lords amendment would fetter the Government's ability to make common-sense decisions—I think that that was the phrase that he used. I am all in favour of common sense, but I do not understand which common-sense decisions would be problematic. The example given by the Minister, which happened to be the same example given by Lord Sainsbury in another place, was the export of a single military vehicle to a developed country such as the United States of America. Clearly, as has been pointed out, that would not raise sustainable development issues.
	As I understand it, therefore, the Government's concern, expressed by hon. Friend the Minister today and by his colleagues in the other place, seems to be that a range of decisions in relation to particular exports to particular countries would not be especially affected by the sustainable development criterion. That is why they wanted the phrase "if any" to be included. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Secretary of State cannot issue appropriate guidance on the sustainable development criterion indicating, for example, what exports to which sorts of countries would be considered. I assume that that is part and parcel of guidance. Nobody has ever argued that every good and service exported by the UK to every country in the world should be subject to an appraisal before an export licence is granted. Guidance is there to assist those making decisions to ensure that the Government's policy on arms export controls and other matters is implemented. The Lords amendment, which, in my view, is better than the Government amendment, would prevent sustainable development from not being considered when it is, in fact, relevant.
	My hon. Friend said that the Government have had legal advice. He will know, as we all do, that Oxfam has also had legal advice from Matrix chambers. As this is a brief debate, I shall not waste the time of the House by quoting that advice, but it is contrary to what my hon. Friend has said and says that the Lords amendment is less unclear and stronger than the Government amendment, and that the problem that my hon. Friend has identified could be dealt with in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I am therefore at a loss to know the real reason why the Government want to amend Lords amendment No. 17.
	I want to make a couple of brief points about guidance on sustainable development, as that is relevant to what will be the work of those responsible once this welcome Bill becomes an Act. I was delighted that, in March, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the Quadripartite Committee that the Cabinet Office is undertaking an exercise with relevant Departments in assessing criterion 8. I welcome the review of criterion 8, and I hope that it will address a couple of issues.
	First, if one considers the consolidated criteria, they do not carry the same weight. The first four criteria take the form that
	"the Government will not issue a licence".
	For example, a licence will not be issued
	"if there is a clear risk that the equipment will be used for internal repression".
	The first four of the eight criteria state that the Government will not grant a licence if certain conditions are satisfied—for example, if it is incompatible with our international obligations, or if exports would
	"promote or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts".
	A current example of that springs to mind.
	My point is that the principle of the first four criteria is that the Government will not grant a licence if a certain condition is satisfied, whereas the principle behind the sustainable development criterion—I am glad that it is being reviewed—is that the Government will "take into account" the effects. I hope that that duty will be considered further in the review that is being undertaken. It is slightly odd that the sustainable development criterion is of a different order of importance than the first four of the eight.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made the point that any realistic and productive assessment of the sustainable development criterion must involve assessing the extent to which arms exports represent value for money or productive expenditure. I shall say nothing about the Tanzanian controversy, but it obviously springs to mind. I want to stress that, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, in the case of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the Government have already accepted the principle of a productive expenditure test. The ECGD's statement of business principles makes it perfectly clear that support for exports to developing countries must be given only when they will not harm sustainable development.
	I spent a few happy moments this morning looking at the ECGD's website. Its business principles include:
	"We will promote a responsible approach to business and will ensure our activities take into account the Government's international policies including those on sustainable development".
	The wording gets stronger. The statement adds:
	"ECGD will ensure that debt sustainability will be a prime determinant of the provision of its support for exports."
	It specifically makes it clear:
	"ECGD will . . . restrict cover for the poorest countries, to transactions which pass a productive expenditure test."
	That is already Government policy in terms of what the ECGD does.
	We should apply that same principle to arms exports. We should use the review of criterion 8 to raise the standards for sustainable development testing to those used by the ECGD. If we do not do that, Government policy on sustainable development will not remain joined up. For example, it would be ludicrous if the Government refused export credit guarantees because the productive expenditure tests had not been met at the same time as they granted a licence for arms exports. A key part of the review of criterion 8 is that it must be used to make the policies consistent. ECGD practice demonstrates that it is right in principle and possible in practice to test for the sustainable development impact when deciding whether to license arms exports. To support that argument, I point to the fact that the Government already do that.
	I acknowledge that the Government have moved on the provision for sustainable development. When we debated the issue on Report, we were told that we did not need such a provision in the Bill because the matter was being dealt with through the criteria. At the meeting I had with the Minister, we were told that we could not put such a provision in the Bill because it would apply to every good that the country exported. We are now being told a third story—we can have such a provision in the Bill, but that the Government do not like the Lords amendment. I am not trying to be difficult and I certainly am not trying to be sarcastic, but I genuinely do not understand why the Government should want to amend the two sensible lines in the Lords amendment.

Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this whole debate is nonsense? The front page of the International Development Act 2002, which went through the House recently, contains a provision for sustainable development, and the Secretary of State for International Development considered that provision to be the most important in the Bill. Furthermore, the Prime Minister told us this afternoon that he has signed up to all the aims of the sustainable development conference to be held in Johannesburg in September. Is this debate not complete nonsense?

Roger Berry: I am not sure that the debate is complete nonsense, but it is confusing. I believe that the Government are committed to sustainable development, and the International Development Act 2002 contains a definition of it. However, I do not understand the argument for amending the Lords amendment. I have explained why that would make the Bill weaker and that the Lords amendment would not stop the Government doing what they want to do. I have never before heard the argument that the Lords amendment might put us in breach of the EU code, and I am still awaiting further clarification on that. I cannot believe that it does, certainly not according to the legal advice that other organisations are receiving.
	I am enthusiastic about this important Bill and the last thing I want to do is vote against my Government's amendment, but I cannot understand why they have tabled it. The Lords amendment is superior. I am sad to say that if the mystery is not explained before the end of the debate, I will not be in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend the Minister. I will deeply regret that and hope that he gives me a reason to be in the same Lobby.

Vincent Cable: I am in favour of the Lords amendments and against the Government's proposed changes. Like the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I, too, am confused about how the argument is progressing. There have been several triple-reverse somersaults on how we should approach sustainable development. Unfortunately, the confusion is infectious. I had hoped that the same broad coalition that operated in the other place would be in action today. It comprised a large group on the Government Benches who shared the well informed scepticism that we have heard this afternoon and Members on the Liberal Democrat, nationalist and Conservative Benches.
	I listened with mounting bafflement to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Only a few weeks ago, the Conservative spokesman on international development questioned the Secretary of State for International Development. She said:
	"The Secretary of State will be aware of the sustainable development amendment to the Export Control Bill, which was recently approved in another place. It was supported by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and bishops, and might give the Department for International Development a greater say in such matters. I call on the right hon. Lady to have the courage of her convictions and tell the House that she will support the sustainable development amendment."—[Official Report, 25 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 500.]
	I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman outranks his colleague or has not consulted her, but he is taking a diametrically opposite point of view. I will not pursue that too much, but I hope that he will explain why for the past year or so his colleagues have said the opposite of what he now proposes.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remind him of what happened in the Standing Committee in November and on Report and Third Reading when we made it clear that we might have abstained had we got a straight answer. We got the answer in the other place, the Government have moved on the issue and we have been back to Scott. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Scott report if he thinks that the proposal conforms with what it recommended. That explains my position. For goodness' sake, it does no one any good if we never move forward in politics.

Vincent Cable: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have consulted his colleague because she made her remarks long after the illuminations that he describes emerged.
	The more important issue is the Government's position on the matter, on which there have been several significant shifts, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) referred with characteristic pithy accuracy. We started with a draft Bill. The Government accepted that the schedule of purposes should embrace the principle of sustainable development. That principle was fairly uncontroversial in the White Paper, the Green Paper and the draft Bill, but then it was changed.
	The Bill went through the Commons and the House of Lords. However, at the last moment, to avoid putting words into the schedule of purposes, the Government explained that the schedule of purposes was not what it was originally supposed to be. They effectively turned the Bill on its head and are now defending amendments that relate to the language that should be used. Many of us who followed the Bill through its stages and who are interested in the Scott report find those amendments unsatisfactory.
	I shall take up specific points. We are told that consideration will be given to sustainable development. That is the weakest language that one could find in this context. The other phrase which is much more controversial—the hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) referred to it—is "if any". To critics of the Bill, that appears to give Ministers the option of not considering sustainable development. That is how it appears from the outside. 5.30 pm
	The Government's view, which the Minister has restated, is that they could be involved in considering many extraneous issues such as trade with the United States or with France. He cited legal opinion to that effect. There are, however, alternative legal opinions. Matrix chambers is one of the most reputable set of barristers, and it makes the point that the Government's legal interpretation is bizarre. I do not want to read the legal language in great detail, but there is a key passage that needs to be put on the record. As for the problem of avoiding dealing with extraneous details, the lawyers say that it would be possible to disregard them
	"even if these two words (if any) were omitted from the clause, on the basis that, in providing guidance about the consideration to be given to issues related to sustainable development in a particular type of case, the Secretary of State can determine the weight to be placed on such issues and may confirm that in certain types of cases such issues are not relevant and may be of little consideration."
	In other words, if an application arrives on the Minister's desk relating to parachutes from Britain to France, he may simply say, "The sustainable development issue carries no weight, or minimal weight, in these circumstances. We will therefore not pursue that line of inquiry." It is an easy way of dealing with the problem. It is difficult to understand why a diametrically opposed legal opinion has been given on this important point. As the Government have changed their mind several times on the legal status of the Bill, I hope that they will give fresh consideration to the issue, which makes them look rather foolish.
	We are talking not only about matters of legality but broader issues of principle. In essence, the Government are trying to tell us, "Trust us. We will interpret sustainable development in the right way at the right time. Providing that there is provision in the guidance, we will look after this concern." In principle, I am always willing to take the Government on trust. However, there are good reasons why we cannot do so in this instance. The first has been taken up twice by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). In her interventions she asks the highly relevant question why the Government chose to disregard the Scott report, and why the four Select Committees, with all-party consensus, recommended that individual applications be considered through parliamentary scrutiny.
	The Government have rejected that approach. By doing so, they sacrificed one of the key safeguards to ensure that applications were properly considered. When the hon. Member for Salisbury intervened on me to say that the amendment is not compatible with the Scott report, that must be seen in conjunction with the fact that the Government have already rejected one of the central propositions of the Scott report, which was parliamentary scrutiny. Had there been that scrutiny, we would not be having the argument. It would not be necessary. It is because the provision is not in place that the relevant language needs to be written much more firmly and strongly in legislation. That is what the debate is about.
	The second reason why we cannot trust government—I do not mean the present Government or the Minister—is the way in which the Tanzanian case was dealt with. That illustrated the weakness of the process of export licence applications in relation to development, in precisely the same way that the Matrix Churchill case illustrated the failures of the old regime. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has done a great deal of work on the Tanzanian case, would like to talk about the issue at considerable length. However, I shall make a few points because the matter specifically illustrates the difficulty that Government have in dealing with development issues in export licence cases.
	The importance of the Tanzanian case is that that was one example where the development argument was clearly set out, first by the World Bank and latterly by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which examined the project and concluded roundly that it was not in the developmental interest. There was a specific and quantifiable test of sustainable development in the conditions set by the International Monetary Fund for the conditions of credit.
	The story of the project, as many people know, is that Barclays bank, working together with BAE Systems, produced a project that appeared superficially to conform to the terms of the IMF definition of sustainable development. In other words, there was a 28 per cent. grant element in the loan. People have examined the project. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk has much more detail than I have, and papers are becoming available. Questions are now being asked about how the project managed to satisfy that test of sustainability.
	Three hypotheses are being offered. The first is that the bank suddenly developed a fit of generosity and decided to give Tanzania, effectively, a grant of £10 million—a third of the value of the loan. That sounds to me highly implausible. The bank has not claimed credit for doing it, and its shareholders certainly have not been told, so it seems unlikely that it did that.
	The second hypothesis is that the bank and BAE Systems fiddled the contract price and overstated the tender price by 30 per cent. so that they could then give a concessional loan. To do that, however, they would have had to engage in what amounts to fraud, with collaborators in Tanzania. We do not know whether that happened, but it seems highly possible that it did.
	The third possibility is that the bank and/or BAE Systems were given a quid pro quo—"You sign this contract for the air traffic control system; we will give you access to banking or another arms contract"—involving, probably, illegal and covert relationships with senior Tanzanian civil servants.
	We do not know what happened. It will emerge, because papers are coming out of the international organisations which are building up the story. One of the Select Committees of the House—I do not know which; it could be the International Development Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Treasury Committee or the Defence Committee—will get their teeth into it, and Ministers and their officials will be called to explain what happened, in precisely the same way as Ministers and officials were called to explain what happened in the case of Matrix Churchill. We shall then understand the dynamics of what happened in Government.
	My understanding is that the Department of Trade and Industry, backed by the Ministry of Defence and 10 Downing street, enthusiastically supported the project. They were opposed by the Secretary of State for International Development and probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who saw it driving a coach and horses through his sustainable development work in relation to debt relief. The story will emerge, but the key conclusion is that the mechanisms of Government, as they operate at present, do not allow a proper test of sustainable development to take place, even when all the evidence is in front of them and is mobilised by Departments of State.
	That is why it is absolutely fundamental that we have strong language in the legislation. If the Tanzanian case can occur under the present Government, far worse things can happen under other Governments. The legislation must be strengthened. That was the purpose of the amendment, and I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support it and to reject the weasel words that have been incorporated in amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17.

Tony Worthington: I do not disagree with anything that was said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
	What a pity that we are having this debate today, given that the Bill was so welcome. It represents a major step forward and is slightly tarnished by the sustainable development aspect. It is still incomprehensible to me why we are in such a tangle on that issue. I praise the Department of Trade and Industry for its role during the mass lobby of Parliament last week, when it spoke to those who were calling for the poor to be looked after under the trade rules. At the heart of that day was the concept of sustainable development, and it was very good that the DTI, alongside other Departments, was making it clear that the Government's policy genuinely has sustainable development at its heart. Indeed, that goes back to what was said by the Chief Secretary in respect of the following announcement:
	"Government Departments have been asked by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ensure that sustainable development issues are considered and reflected in their bids for the 2001 Spending Review".
	That gave rise to a press release entitled "Sustainable Development at the Heart of Government Policy Development"—an approach that is very welcome and which we want to encourage.
	There are other instances in the light of which today's debate is genuinely incomprehensible. On 11 January 2000, the Chancellor made a very important speech. In giving the Gilbert Murray memorial lecture, he called for Government policy to maximise the benefits of debt relief in poverty reduction and economic development by imposing sustainable development criteria. He said:
	"Britain's export credits will only support productive investment that assists social and economic development and thus reduces poverty."
	That is absolutely clear and it was very welcome. Hon. Members have referred to the consequence of that statement in terms of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Seemingly, the oddity is that, although any rank and file export that goes to the ECGD must be justified by the test of sustainable development, something that is related to arms does not have to pass that test. As we seem to be getting towards joined-up government, it appears that somebody is undoing a link, which is very unfortunate.
	The Secretary of State says that we take sustainable development seriously. That is the trusters' argument, but the case for the trusters is seriously weakened by two factors. First—this seems pretty much the crunch factor—no one has ever found an example of an arms export being turned down on the basis of sustainable development. I do not know whether the Minister has received information yet from other sources, but when I addressed a question about the matter to the Foreign Secretary in the Quadripartite Committee in March, he said, prompted by his officials, that there had been no cases in which sustainable development had been the ground on which an export was turned down. Unless something has happened since March—if it had, one would have expected the DTI to remember it—we are being asked to take seriously the assertion that sustainable development is at the heart of Government policy in the DTI, and in terms of export controls, even though there has never been an instance in which it was the reason for turning down an export. That is difficult to accept.
	The second weakness in the argument has been the presence in the debate, perhaps for some malevolent reason, of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. If one had had to sit down in the past in a university seminar and devise a project that would fail a sustainable development test, one would have come up with this one. It is a beauty. One section of the Government had been giving debt relief to one of the world's poorest countries on the grounds that that debt was unsustainable, then along came another section of the Government encouraging it to take on £28 million-worth of debt for a civil air traffic control system that did not work and was described in the first International Civil Aviation Organisation report—I have not seen the second report, but I think that it is even more damaging—as being out of date and in need of extra equipment to make it work. One has to wonder how that can be classified as sustainable development.
	The Government's response when BAE Systems came to them in 1997 should have been to acknowledge that their policy was not sorted out and that sustainable development was not at the heart of Government at that time. However, that did not happen. The project went through the strange procedure of being approved by the arms working party, which was virtually the same as saying, "You're licensed." I say that because of 4,000 to 5,000 applications a year, only about five were not licensed at the end of the procedure. It was almost unheard of for someone not to be given permission to move forward by the arms working party, which was composed only of officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, and had no representatives from the Department for International Development. The project was a mess, and it would not go through nowadays.
	What puzzles me is that no Minister has been able to say that such a project would be caught by the Bill. It would be welcome to hear the Minister say that the Government are upgrading the sustainable development criteria so that such projects will be caught in future. It was a mess, with Cabinet Ministers quarrelling in public over the decision on whether the project was to go ahead at a time when the system had already been built and was resting in crates on the Isle of Wight. Such things happen. However, we need assurances that projects that so clearly infringe any notion of sustainable development will not be approved in future. It would be encouraging if the Minister could say that the Government recognise the need to strengthen the sustainable development criteria and that a project such as the Tanzanian air traffic control system would be caught by the Bill. I hope that he will address those concerns.

Tony Baldry: It is a matter of regret that the Government have given so little time to the debate on Lords amendments to the Bill, which has been widely welcomed and on which there is broad consensus. We have only three hours and the Minister took the first half an hour in introducing the Government's response to the first group of amendments.
	In respect of sustainable development, in May 2001 the Quadripartite Committee said that
	"consideration should be given to putting on the face of the Bill assurances . . . that licensing decisions should have due regard to the general purposes for which controls can be imposed, as set out in the Schedule to the Bill".
	I do not believe that the Committee envisaged that the Government would initially give sustainable development a strong profile in the draft measure, subsequently remove it when the Bill was first published and amend the measure to include it in another place. However, the language is rather ambiguous, and I shall briefly act as a boring lawyer and make a couple of boring lawyer's points.
	I am a member of the Quadripartite Committee and I chair the Select Committee on International Development. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) is a member of the latter, and many other members of it are or have been present this afternoon. We have tried to achieve the coherent application of criterion 8 of the EU's consolidated code of conduct for arms export, which ensures, especially in the developing world, that export licences are balanced with the recipient country's economic and poverty reduction policies. Consistent and balanced defence exports are therefore the watchwords.
	The Government's assertions in the explanatory notes show that the basis for the latest status of sustainable development is clarifying
	"the manner in which sustainable development issues are addressed".
	It is not so much the "manner" in which sustainable development is "addressed" as the way in which it is expressed that is ambiguous in the Bill. It states that,
	"guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given"
	to sustainable development must be provided.
	I have two anxieties about the status of such "consideration" of sustainable development. First, I am worried about the weasel wording of the phrase "to be given", which I suspect will mean that sustainable development is often considered but frequently ignored. The wording has not been amended to "have regard to", and the Bill will therefore not move us much further than the consideration that is currently given to criterion 8.
	Let us consider a straightforward example. Hon. Members are more than aware of the further developments in the Tanzanian air traffic control debacle, and I shall not repeat them. However, hon. Members may be interested in the initial issues that surround the radar sale, not least the first International Civil Aviation Organisation's report to the World Bank. It was published in November last year, when the Government claimed that they took full account of sustainable development.
	When the Select Committee on International Development invited the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give evidence on the Tanzanian case, she refused but reaffirmed in a letter to us on 17 December 2001,
	"the Government's commitment to considering carefully the issue of sustainable development as defined in criterion 8."
	If the Government were serious about carefully considering sustainable development, they would not have granted the Tanzanian licence after carefully considering the ICAO's previous submission to the World Bank, which stated that,
	"the system, as contracted, is primarily a military system and can provide limited support to civil air purposes".
	I understand that the Department for International Development considered the document to be sufficient ground for not granting the licence. The Department of Trade and Industry did not listen to those anxieties, and that demonstrates disingenuousness in the dealings in Whitehall.
	In response to a written parliamentary question by me on 28 January 2002, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated:
	"The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation has received no representation from the International Civil Aviation Organisation on Tanzania's export licences."—[Official Report, 28 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 66W.]
	That statement, which implies that the Department had never seen the relevant ICAO document, contrasts sharply with the response of the Secretary of State for International Development to a question on 5 February 2002. It stated:
	"When I received a copy of the letter of 8 November from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to the World Bank, I sent copies to the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. I have since had discussions and correspondence with these Departments on the content of the ICAO letter."—[Official Report, 5 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 918-19W.]
	Not only is the Department of Trade and Industry's response to my parliamentary question somewhat disingenuous, it also reinforces the Department's ambivalent attitude to the "consideration" of sustainable development criteria. As other hon. Members have said, one sometimes has to be suspicious of Government collectively—not any specific Government, but the machinery of government.
	That leads to my second worry about the Bill's weasel words on sustainable development status. The Bill contains the caveat phrase, "if any" about sustainable development. Doubtless it means that the Government can flagrantly disregard criterion 8 if they wish, while using wording to make such a dismissal of sustainable development almost impossible to challenge. Under such circumstances, how can the current status of sustainable development ensure coherent export policy? It simply will not.
	There are no two better examples than the early stages of the Tanzanian export control licence application and the first case of defence exports to India. Let us consider the Foreign Secretary's recent evidence to the Quadripartite Committee. On 21 March, he said that,
	"it is whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper sustainable development of the recipient country. As with any other criteria, those have to be weighted in the round".
	I believe that the Foreign Secretary is suggesting that we read "cost effective" for "sustainable development". Cost effective for whom? Can £1 billion-worth of defence spending be cost effective for a country that has increased its defence spending by 28 per cent. in the past two years? Defence spending of £1 billion by India is worth 10 years of UK bilateral development to India, which is our largest recipient of bilateral aid. I suspect that the money would be better invested in India's under-resourced health and education systems. How can the scale of such defence sales be within the capacity of a country that is the top recipient of the Government's bilateral aid?
	Criterion 8 explicitly asserts that export licences should not be granted when that would be incompatible with economic capacity. That was clearly the case when Tanzania's economic stability already depended on the UK's recent writing off of £100 million in debt and richer countries' collectively writing off of $3 billion in debt.
	As the Tanzanian case shows, it would be beneficial to developing countries if the phrase "if any" were removed. If hon. Members doubt that, I refer them to the Foreign Secretary's comments to the Quadripartite Committee, when he spoke of,
	"careful consideration of whether the proposed export could seriously undermine Tanzania's economy or seriously hamper Tanzanian sustainable development."
	Those sentiments echo those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and should make us question whether "cost effective" means moneys for the UK or the recipient country.
	Let me put the matter another way. I suspect that the conundrum is made no clearer than by the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 29 January to a written parliamentary question that I tabled. He said that when the Tanzanian case was initially assessed under the F680 procedure,
	"sustainable development was not a specific factor taken into account . . . as . . . Tanzania did not include cost information, it would have been difficult to take any impact related specifically to the financing of the equipment into account."—[Official Report, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 218W.]
	Where on earth is the "weighted in the round" consideration of criterion 8?

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No. The Government have provided scant time for the debate. The hon. Gentleman must make his own contribution. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench want to move on to other amendments, and the House has been given a pathetic amount of time for the debate.
	Although the F680 assessment does not represent an approved licence, only a handful of the 10,000 or so applications that are assessed each year do not produce an export licence. Moreover, although the Ministry of Defence may assure us that the F680 procedure is being reviewed to allow for "consultation" with the Department for International Development on future assessments under it, we have to question whether "consultation" will mean as much as "consideration" in the Bill.
	If the status of sustainable development is not affirmed early in the defence export process, it is imperative that "consideration" of sustainable development is undertaken as much as possible later in the licence process.
	Much of the measure is welcome. The Government have somersaulted so often that it is difficult to know where they stand. I do not gainsay the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). It is good news that sustainable development is included in the Bill. However, the jury is still out on whether the Government have any intention of ensuring that the true spirit of sustainable development is invoked in the measure's implementation. The test will come and we shall ascertain in due course whether the Department for International Development and other Departments are given a fair and reasonable say in defence export licensing. If they are not, Ministers can be confident that hon. Members from all parties will raise the issue again.

Ann McKechin: First, I want to assure the Minister of my support for the principal purposes of the Bill, which is welcomed on both sides of the House. The need for a modern, comprehensive approach to the control of exports—particularly arms—is overwhelming and long overdue. Recent events in Palestine and Kashmir have again shown the need for proper restraints to be in place.
	We have also accepted that, in deciding our criteria, it is not sufficient simply to state that arms exports should not have an adverse effect on a region's peace and stability. In too many cases, countries have spent millions of pounds on expanding their armed forces and providing them with sophisticated weaponry, while making little investment in basic health and education facilities for their own citizens. Armed conflict may come at a later date, by which time the size and strength of military forces can lead to rapid and horrendous consequences.
	That is why I also welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted that the principle of sustainable development should be an integral part of the decision-making process, particularly for exports to developing nations. In order to reassure our constituents, church groups and many non-governmental organisations about the Bill's ability to prevent abuses, I strongly urge the Government to consider accepting a definition of the concept that is both meaningful and capable of assessment.
	Armed conflict remains the greatest hindrance to eradicating the scar of poverty from our world and preventing the unnecessary deaths of millions. In many cases, the global market in arms has led to increasing instability in conflict zones and, directly and indirectly, to the loss of life. Sadly, the United Kingdom has not been exempt from participating in this grim and tawdry business.
	I note that, when the Bill was discussed in the other place, the Government agreed to review their criteria for sustainable development. It is vital that the definition of that concept is fully compatible with that used by the Department for International Development and by the Department of Trade and Industry's own Export Credits Guarantee Department—a case that has been eloquently stated today by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), and for City of York (Hugh Bayley). As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie correctly said, it would be absurd for an export licence for arms sales to be granted after an application for export credit had been rejected on development grounds, despite both processes claiming to have considered the impact on a country's sustainable development. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's own statement of business principles clearly states that exports must not harm sustainable development, and that includes having regard to debt sustainability. Any application to the Department for exports to the world's poorest countries must pass a "productive expenditure" test.
	I had the privilege of serving on the Committee that scrutinised the International Development Act 2002. That measure provides the first legal definition of sustainable development, and I am surprised that the Minister did not mention it today. It states that such development must be
	"prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country".
	Does the Minister not agree that it would be strange to have two Departments—or even two sections of the same Department—working with different definitions of the same concept at the same time? I trust that he will be able to give the House a commitment that his intention in the review is to achieve joined-up government and a definition that is as clear, comprehensive and unambiguous as that applied by other sections of the Government.
	There is a great deal of support for the Bill, and it would be very sad if the Government were unable to offer a clear and comprehensive approach to sustainable development at the same time. That would not require any changes to primary or secondary legislation. A simple commitment from the Minister today would reassure many hon. Members that the Government are truly committed to sustainable development, and to one definition of that concept.

Elfyn Llwyd: I shall be as quick as I can, bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to speak. Following, as I do, the hon. Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry), there is not a lot that remains to be said. I shall, however, make one or two points.
	The sustainability issue appears to have gone in and out of the Bill like a squirrel going in and out of a hole in a tree. It seems strange that we are having this debate today, bearing in mind that the Bill has much to commend it. I understood the point made by the hon. Member for Kingswood when he rightly said that there is much in the Bill to support, and that he had difficulty understanding why we were having the debate. I share that concern; I cannot understand it either.
	If we proceed this evening to overturn the Lords amendments, the Bill's provisions on sustainable development will surely be extremely weak. We would merely be placing a duty to give consideration— "if any"—to sustainable development. That would be an even weaker provision than that in the current system. The Government's original argument was that an explicit reference to sustainable development in the Bill was not needed because the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance.
	In this context, the Bill referred specifically to the consolidated criteria that are used by the responsible Government Departments to determine whether individual export licences should be granted. I am thinking specifically of criterion 8, which covers sustainable development and was the subject of an exchange at the beginning of the debate. It is patently obvious to all, however, that the current system is insufficient, because of the decision to grant an export licence in the Tanzanian case. I shall not dwell on that example, because there are others here who are far better qualified than I am to speak on that issue. I shall, however, highlight one or two brief points.
	As we know, the World Bank commissioned independent civil aviation experts to look into the Tanzanian deal, and its report has just been published. It has condemned the sale, describing the system in question as a complete waste of money. The experts concluded that Tanzania could have bought an off-the-peg system for about a quarter of the price agreed with BAE Systems, that the system actually purchased had "dated technology", and that Tanzania does not have an air force of its own anyway. We also heard about the debacle between the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry, a misunderstanding that leads us to think that government is not always joined up. If the Government are serious about sustainable development, the findings of the World Bank must surely be an embarrassment to them.
	In The Guardian on 15 June, a DTI spokesperson said that the World Bank report would make no difference to the Department's attitude towards the deal. He also stated:
	"We will not revoke the export licence because this report is not relevant to it."
	I regret having to repeat those words, and when I take into account what the Minister says about the criteria now being urgently reviewed, I have to ask when that review will commence. If the gentleman at the DTI takes part in it, I do not hold out much hope for the future.
	The ICAO report has been mentioned, and there seem to be 100,000 reasons why the Tanzanian debacle sets a bad example, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said earlier. I hope that the Government will reconsider their stance on this matter. I am another boring lawyer, but I do not intend to dissect the amendments. Suffice it to say that it is patently obvious to anyone, lawyer or layman, that the Government's proposals will water down the concept of sustainability. I regret that, but, whichever side of the argument one comes from, it is the obvious conclusion to draw. I repeat that there is much in the Bill to commend it, and it is regrettable that we are having this debate today.

Hugh Bayley: We have had a fairly full debate, and I will try not to detain the House. I will simply say that I welcome the Bill. How different this is from what happened when the Conservatives were in power. I also welcome the Government's decision to make specific reference in the Bill to sustainable development. From time to time, during the short time that I spent on the Front Bench, I had to dream up reasons why the Government might, on reflection, change their position. One good reason for the Government deciding, when the Bill was in another place, to agree that sustainable development should appear in the Bill, was that when they first published the Bill and brought it to this House, the International Development Act 2002 was not on the statute book. For the first time, we now have a statutory definition of sustainable development. It would be rather curious if, a few months after agreeing on such a definition, we refused to apply it in relation to a further piece of legislation.
	I strongly welcome Lord Sainsbury's statement in the other place that criterion 8, the "sustainable development" criterion, would be reviewed. I do not want to repeat the arguments that other Members on both sides of the House have advanced so cogently about the need to use the sustainable development tests relating to applications for export credit guarantees—for instance, the "productive expenditure" test, to give just one example in connection with arms sales.
	I should mention, however, that another of the export credit guarantee tests concerns whether an export would be compatible with debt sustainability. That test should certainly apply to arms sales; omitting it would lead to the unjoined-up-government nonsense whereby one Department—the Department for International Development—can commit millions of pounds of Government money to writing off a developing country's debt, only for another Department to make a decision that creates a similar amount of debt.
	Not just the working but the wording of criterion 8 needs to be reviewed. In particular, the Government should devise and publish a series of specific sustainability tests and apply them rigorously when considering whether the "sustainable development" criterion is being applied. I ask the Minister to comment on that when he replies. Indeed, I should like him to reflect on the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), as well as those I have raised. If he wants the House to go along with the Government's amendment, I hope he will be able to reassure us by saying that they intend to publish that series of tests allowing them to determine the question of sustainability.

Norman Lamb: Several Members have described the Government's approach as incomprehensible, and have said that they are confused by the debate. I suspect that we should not be confused in any way. We all know, surely, that a battle is in progress at the heart of Government between those who want to pursue the concept of sustainable development and make it a binding test in all contexts of Government policy, and those in Government who are more interested in sustaining the British arms industry. That is what has happened with the Tanzanian scandal, and it is what is happening in the Bill. At present those in the Cabinet who want to sustain the British arms industry, even at the expense of sustainable development, are winning the argument. 6.15 pm
	It is important for those of us who believe that sustainable development must be at the core of all Government thinking to keep challenging the Government. Their approach, and their amendment, will render any effective test of sustainable development meaningless. What they are doing represents spin without substance. It will look good on paper, but the Government will be able to evade the test whenever they need to. Moreover, it means that we will sustain this inconsistent approach across Government.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) pointed out, the International Development Act 2002 now has at its heart a requirement that the spending of development assistance must meet the test of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty. Many Labour Members have mentioned the approach of the ECGD. The work of that department must also meet the test of sustainable development—but when the Bill has been passed, if the Government have their way, they will ultimately be able to ignore sustainable development when granting export licences.
	Export licence applications are currently considered in terms of the consolidated criteria. Many references have been made to criterion 8, and to the fact that it is under review and will be reformed. We know, however, that when the Government are in a corner they will ignore that criterion. We know it from the example of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. We know that what really drove the decision to grant a licence was the issue of jobs and the interests of the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems.
	I want the Minister to answer a specific question. When the Department of Trade and Industry granted the export licence in December, did it know of the role of Barclays bank? Did it know that Barclays had apparently subsidised the deal? As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) observed, here we have a commercial bank suddenly, in a fit of generosity, subsidising a totally inappropriate arms deal with a heavily indebted country. It is unbelievable. The Secretary of State for International Development has already alluded to corruption. Did the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry know the details when she reached her decision back in December?
	As other Members have said, the really troubling aspect of the Government's approach today is that a decision such as that reached in the case of the Tanzanian scandal will be just as possible after the Bill has been passed. Consideration is a very weak test. It will be perfectly possible for the Government to demonstrate that they have considered sustainable development before rejecting it. No legal challenge will be possible, given such a pathetically weak test. The Government will be able to go on sustaining the arms industry, as they seem willing to do at present.
	I want to say something about the interplay between the granting of an export licence and the preliminary clearance given by the Ministry of Defence. Again, sustainable development effectively goes out of the window. The MOD, bizarrely, has an opportunity to give preliminary clearance to an arms export that will later have to be considered by an entirely separate Department, the Department of Trade and Industry. Back in August 1997—just after the then Foreign Secretary had referred to a foreign policy with an ethical dimension—it gave preliminary clearance to an arms sale to Tanzania.
	Before the export licence was granted last December, BAE Systems entered into a binding contract with Tanzania, with the support of Barclays bank. The equipment was largely built, and $15 million had already been paid. All that happened before the application for an export licence was made. No one can tell me that when the application was considered in December, sustainable development played any part in the decision that was reached—and that will still be so in similar cases after the Bill has been passed.
	In promoting the Government amendment, the Minister seemed to make great play of the alleged loophole—the fact that if the Lords amendment remained in place, the provision would be inconsistent with the European consolidated criteria—but in answer to an intervention he seemed, as I understood him, to make it clear that we would not be in breach of any legal obligation to Europe. If the Lords amendment were agreed, we would have a system that better protected the interests of sustainable development, and that is what the Government are seeking to throw out. They should be ashamed.

Roger Casale: This seems the right moment in our proceedings to put on the record my support for the Government's decision to put sustainable development back in the Bill. That was the right decision. It cannot have been an easy decision, not least because they had previously removed it. It opens the Government to potential criticism and attack on their overall approach, so it was a courageous decision, too.
	I am delighted that sustainable development is back in the Bill. The reason why the Government appeared to be reluctant to put it back has come out in the debate; I use the word "appeared" because I do not believe that they were truly reluctant. There was no lack of commitment to sustainable development. Indeed, how could anyone, let alone a Labour Government committed to tackling poverty at home and abroad, be against that admirable goal?
	It is all too clear that there is a conflict—many hon. Members have referred to it—in the day-to-day business of Government, and in the pressures from different Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Department for International Development. Those elements clearly came to a head in the Tanzanian air traffic control issue. We saw a lot of rather sanctimonious nonsense in the press about that at times.
	Unrealistic expectations were voiced about how the Government should have acted. The Government were in a difficult position, because they had to try to square the circle and bring together the legitimate needs of different sectors represented by different Government Departments. What we need is not an approach to international development or trade issues that privileges one particular Department—whether that be the Department for International Development, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Defence—but a coherent overall approach, a coherent strategy on making decisions about matters such as the Tanzanian air traffic control issue, which takes all the relevant considerations into account.
	At the heart of that strategy must be the concept of sustainable development. Not only do we need a concept of sustainable development in the Bill, but it should be defined in the same way for each Department, so that it can act as a golden thread that joins the work of different Departments.
	At the same time, we must recognise that sustainable development definitions are subject to change. Twenty years ago, we had the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, which emphasised reconciling social and economic development with the environment. Today there is a much stronger emphasis on tackling poverty and building democracy in developing countries as a way of ensuring that development in those countries is sustained over time. We must recognise that we cannot simply open the Oxford English dictionary and find a definition of "sustainable development". It is a contested concept. The notion of sustainable development that we are anchoring in the Bill today will be subject to change over time.
	For that reason it is important to understand that in the application of that concept to practical everyday politics there needs to be a certain degree of flexibility and adaptability. None the less, I am delighted that the concept is back in the Bill, because the whole aspiration and thrust of the Bill is to change dramatically the approach to the control of export licences, which was long overdue, and to put it on a completely new footing with new principles at its core. I hope that the concept of sustainable development is robust enough to link the work of different Departments. I wish the Government luck, every success, and, I hope, support from reasonable-minded people who will not use that concept as a rod to beat the Government over the head with in years to come.

Jeremy Corbyn: Briefly, because I know that other hon. Members want to raise other issues on the Bill, I shall make three points. First, can the Minister say what is happening to the review of criterion 8, when he expects that to be published, and how it will be published for us?
	Secondly, it must be plain that sustainable development has to be among the criteria for arms exports. The Tanzanian fiasco points that up, as do many others; one only has to look at the arms sales that have traditionally been made around the world to the most odious regimes presiding over the greatest poverty and abuses of human rights. The two often go together.
	I cannot understand why we have got ourselves into the incredibly arcane debate about whether this or that version of sustainable development is in Bill. I would like to hear from the Minister a clear answer to the effect that sustainable development will be central to the considerations, and that the Department for International Development will have an opportunity to take part in that review. It would not have to review every document, as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) seemed to claim, but at least it would have a say in the general criteria, and would therefore influence the decisions that were made.
	Thirdly, I regret that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others was not selected, because this whole debate clearly underlines the case for proper effective parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports. Many of us have spent many years being very concerned about the fact that the arms export industry in this country is heavily subsidised, about the damage that it does to the economies that purchase arms from us, and about the fact that regimes that have no regard whatever for human rights buy arms claiming that they will be used to defend their country against external aggression, and then use them simply for internal oppression.
	Those problems are at the heart of the concerns that many people have. I hope that when the Minister replies, he can convince us that the many people who are campaigning on the issue are right, that the Government have heard them, and that they will be serious about controlling arms exports. I no longer hear talk of proposals for an arms conversion industry. Perhaps this is the time for the Minister to bring those proposals forward again.

Nigel Griffiths: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points and, I hope, reassure the House, including my hon. Friends. May I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)? On the first question that he put to me, the Government recognise the need to consider how criterion 8 can be most effectively applied in assessing relevant export licence applications, and we have agreed that there is a need for clearer procedures in Whitehall for reaching decisions when sustainable development is an issue. The Cabinet Office has been tasked with facilitating an interdepartmental discussion of the issue involving all the Departments with an interest. That discussion continues, so the Government are not currently considering a change in the policy.
	The Government have already published details of how they consider, and will consider, sustainable development both now and under the Bill. The consolidated criteria published in October 2000 represent the Government's policy now, and will continue to represent it under the Bill. That is made clear by subsection (8) of the new clause to be inserted by amendment No. 17. We have a definition appropriate to that—one agreed with all our EU partners. Definitions and criteria relating to other issues and other circumstances are simply not relevant here.
	I remind the House, especially the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that the Bill says that the Government must have regard to the guidance. It will not be possible simply to ignore sustainable development, as I think he mistakenly stated. The use of the words "if any" does not mean that a future Government could simply decide not to address the issue of sustainable development, or indeed any of the issues listed in the table referred to in the schedule.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) implied that it would be fairly straightforward for advisers or Ministers to pass swiftly over obviously irrelevant considerations, but that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of primary legislation. A duty for the Government is not there to be applied or ignored according to the view of the Government of the day as to what is or is not relevant. That is the attitude that the Bill is designed to prevent, and we have taken care to draft our proposals in such a way that the Bill allows common-sense decisions to be taken, but only where they can be justified. The Liberal Democrat amendments would make it impossible for common sense to apply, and would encourage the absurdity of the box-ticking approach that we are seeking to avoid.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the Scott report and claimed that it made a recommendation on prior scrutiny. However, the Scott report never mentioned prior scrutiny. It spoke in favour of scrutiny orders, which are provided for in the Bill.
	I repeat that if sustainable development were in the schedule, that would empower the Government to control the export or trade of pretty well any goods of any kind, since almost any goods have the capacity to have an effect on the sustainable development of a recipient country. This would be a massive extension of the Government's ability to impose controls.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) mistakenly believes that only Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence officials consider F680 inquiries. I can assure him that Department for International Development officials are involved in every case in which it is necessary to consider criterion 8 of the consolidated national and EU code.

Tony Worthington: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths: I will not prolong our proceedings. I gave way generously earlier, and my reward was to be accused of delaying things and spending too much time at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find a way of coming back to the issue.
	As there has been an allegation of wrongdoing and criminal activity on the part of BAE Systems, I want to put clearly on the record the fact that the Government have no evidence that the deal was in any way corrupt. We are committed to working with our international partners and the business community to ensure that there is effective action both here and abroad to tackle the problem of corruption, as the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 make clear.

Norman Lamb: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made serious allegations about Barclays and BAE Systems. I do not know if he intends to repeat them outside this House, but I would caution against it.
	I hope that I have given a justification for rejecting amendment No. 1 and supporting the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 40.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 17, before clause 7, to insert the following new clause—Guidance about the exercise of functions under control orders.
	Amendment made: (a), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
	'The guidance required by subsection (3) must include guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given,'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]
	Lords amendment No. 17, as amended, agreed to.

After Clause 3

Lords amendment: No. 10.

Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6, and the Government motions to disagree thereto, and Lords amendment No. 16.

Nigel Griffiths: Hon. Members may be aware that extensive discussion took place in the House of Lords on the Bill's possible impact on the activities of scientists and academics. To address those concerns and make clear their position on these important issues, the Government tabled their own amendment—Lords amendment No. 16—which protects academic freedom. Opposition amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 10 were passed with the same aim, but they would introduce several highly damaging loopholes. For instance, if they were accepted we could not prevent the transfer abroad of research into the development of torture equipment technology.
	I shall explain how the Bill and amendment No. 16 provide protections to ensure that the Bill cannot be misused to damage academic freedoms. I shall also explain the damaging consequences of the Opposition amendments, in the hope that hon. Members will agree to their being overturned.
	The academic community has acknowledged its concern not about the controls that the Government plan to introduce through the Bill, but about whether a future Government could misuse the powers in the Bill. Baroness Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, stated during a debate in the other place that, after discussions with the Government, UUK was convinced that they in no way wanted to impinge on academic freedom by way of the Bill. Universities UK was nevertheless keen for the protections for academic freedom in secondary legislation under the Bill to be backed up by a statement in the House that the Government intended to protect academic freedom in that way. Lord Sainsbury made such a statement in the other place, and I can happily give the same assurance here today.
	There are already strict limits on how the Bill's powers could be used. They can be used only to control exports or transfers required by our international obligations on military equipment and technology and on exports or transfers that could have serious consequences, such as contributing to weapons of mass destruction programmes, or human rights abuses. In spite of that, Universities UK and others, including parliamentary colleagues, requested that a clear commitment to academic freedom be set out in the Bill. In response, the Government introduced Lords amendment No. 16. That makes clear that the Secretary of State, when making secondary legislation under the Bill, must avoid unreasonable restrictions on putting information in the public domain or communicating material already in the public domain.
	Although the amendment does not use the words "academic freedom", it goes to the heart of what academic freedom is about. It protects freedoms for all, not just for members of the academic community, including freedoms to publish, or otherwise make publicly available, research and to communicate it to students and others. That reflects the fact that scientific and other research is carried out far more widely than just in the academic world. Therefore the rules applying to such research should apply equally to all undertaking it—a matter of some concern, I understand, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
	Under the amendment, any order under the Bill that attempted to place an unreasonable restriction on publication or communication could be opposed in the courts. We have tested the effect of the amendment on a list of scenarios sent to us by Universities UK which illustrated the kind of situation that universities were concerned about. The answers to those scenarios illustrate—I hope—that the Bill will not, and could not, be used to damage academic freedoms. The details are available in the Library. The Government are nevertheless willing to continue working with Universities UK and others to consider any remaining concerns or proposals they may have in relation to the Bill.
	The Government amendment, Lords amendment No. 16, also ensures that any controls introduced under the Bill can be kept in line with our obligations under international regimes, such as the missile technology control regime and the Wassenaar arrangement. That is because it will enable us to keep the exemptions for information in the public domain contained in secondary legislation in line with the international concepts and definitions used.
	The Opposition's amendment, Lords amendment No. 10, sought to protect academic freedoms, but unlike the Government amendment, it would also create very damaging loopholes in the Bill. I shall explain what those are. First, subsections 1(a) and (b) of the amendment would establish in secondary legislation an immutable exemption for information in, or being placed in, the public domain, unless the transfer was related to weapons of mass destruction or required by international treaty obligations. Because that exemption could not be adapted except by primary legislation, Lords amendment No. 10 would prevent the UK from complying with its commitments to voluntary export control regimes such as the Wassenaar arrangement and the missile technology control regime, if those agreed any change to the definition used, as they might do. As the House will know, those international regimes form a crucial part of global efforts to combat proliferation of conventional and non-conventional weapons, and it is therefore essential that the United Kingdom be able to meet its commitments to those regimes.
	Subsection 1(c) of Lords amendment No. 10 would exempt from control any and all information transferred in the course of academic teaching or research unless the transfer was related to weapons of mass destruction or involved military technology. That would exempt anyone engaged in academic research and teaching from controls on the transfer of technology capable of causing the consequences listed in the schedule to the Bill, such as human rights abuses, internal repression or facilitation of terrorism or serious crime. It would therefore permit an academic to contravene the Government's 1997 ban on export of equipment and related technology about which we have had evidence that it has been used in torture—by sending overseas research results on how to make, for example, electric shock batons. It is unacceptable in the Government's view that any one group should be automatically exempted from our export control regime in that way. The all-party Quadripartite Select Committee agreed with that view in its report on the draft Bill, stating:
	"We see no case for complete exemption of academic activity from export controls".
	The effect of subsection 4 of amendment No. 10 would be to require the Secretary of State to misuse licensing powers granted to her under EU law. Subsection (4) of the amendment would require the Government to grant licences under directly applicable EU provisions in such a way as to exempt academic activity in certain areas from control. However, the European Union dual-use regulation currently in force states that licence applications under it must be considered against the European Union code of conduct on arms exports. The amendment would therefore make the Secretary of State subject to conflicting duties under national and EU law. Moreover, the regulation already includes specific exemptions from control for information in the public domain and for basic scientific research, and it is not open to member states to attempt to alter those.
	Lords amendment No. 4, also tabled by the Opposition, would remove clause 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) from the Bill. The Opposition suggested in the other place that those clauses could be used to require overseas students to obtain licences to study in the UK. Let me assure the House that that is simply not the case. The Bill could not be used to license overseas students' presence in the UK. However, the powers that amendment No. 4 would remove are crucial if we are to have a comprehensive export control regime. Those powers would give the Government the power to impose controls on transfers of technology within or into the UK where the technology transferred was intended for use outside the UK.
	Without those powers, we would have a huge loophole in the Bill. Let me explain why. As well as being exported physically or electronically, technology can in effect be exported through communications in person, either in the UK or overseas—for example, an expert going overseas and providing training there could be effectively exporting technology. The European Union joint action on provision of technical assistance to weapons of mass destruction programmes requires us to control such transfers of technology by UK persons overseas that are destined for use in WMD programmes. But exactly the same transfer of WMD-related technology to exactly the same person with links to a WMD programme could be made entirely within the UK, with the intention that the recipient would then use that technology overseas.
	It would be absurd if a licence was needed for the overseas transfer, but not if the same transfer took place in the UK. Equally it would make a nonsense of the controls if they could be evaded by a UK person overseas transferring technology into the UK in the knowledge that the receiver intended to take that information and use it overseas. That is why we have proposed to introduce controls on such transfers within and into the UK. However, we recognise that regulating these types of transfers is difficult, so we have made it clear that these controls will apply only to the areas of greatest concern—namely, weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes.
	We need clause 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) of the Bill if we are to have effective controls against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, our proposals in this area were strongly supported by the all-party Quadripartite Committee, which pointed out that
	"non-proliferation is arguably the most important single issue in strategic export controls".
	The Committee went on to describe the proposals in its report on the draft Bill as "profoundly significant".
	The Government have made every effort to address the academic community's concerns about the Bill. We believe that Lords amendment No. 16 strikes the correct balance between the need to protect the freedom of academics and others engaged in teaching and research and the need for an effective export control regime. I urge the House to accept the amendment and to overturn Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 10.

Robert Key: This is an important group of amendments and we have only a little over half an hour in which to have a coherent debate. I shall do my best to be speedy. The Minister is profoundly mistaken to think that the academic community will be in any sense reassured by what he has said and what his colleagues said in the other place. There is a misunderstanding about why the academic community is concerned. The current regime of export controls was introduced in 1939, and for many years it applied only to physical goods. Although technology could be transferred electronically by telegraph from the 1840s, by telephone and fax from the 1870s, and by radio from the 1900s, no attempt was made to do so.
	Some years ago the Department of Trade and Industry started applying export controls to manuals for weapons as well as to weapons. That caused a certain amount of grumbling, and served no obvious purpose other than to make work for the civil service. The DTI, however, has never lacked powers against genuine arms exporters. If a company successfully argued in court that controlling manuals was ultra vires, it would no doubt get hammered on its other licence applications. The problem is that these powers have often been used erratically. For example, the Canadian army was refused an export licence for flails for use in mine clearance in Bosnia. Apparently, the DTI saw the word "mine" and froze. That led to the Scott inquiry, after which something had to be done.
	During the 1990s, the United States National Security Agency tried to tighten the regulation of civilian cryptography. In the last months of the first Bush Administration, it pitched the clipper chip—a new standard for encryption with the feature that the National Security Agency would hold a master key. Thus US business could get the benefits of strong encryption, but if it were abused by criminals, the National Security Agency would be able to defeat it. George Bush senior and his Cabinet were hostile; they thought that it was bureaucratic empire-building and would cause them all sorts of trouble. Once President Clinton was elected, however, the pitch was repeated and got a warmer reception. Vice-President Al Gore took on the role of directing cryptography policy in the Cabinet. His efforts to sell the clipper chip were hampered by the availability world wide of encryption software that can be downloaded from many academic and other websites. Why should people pay $100 for encryption that the United States Government can break when they can get free software that they cannot break?
	Cryptography is now used in a large number of systems as the glue that holds things together. It is found in every personal computer, in web servers, browsers, banks' automatic teller machines, car door openers, electricity meters and even one-armed bandits. As the USA tried to retain export controls on the technology, it waded deeper into trouble.
	United States law, unlike English law, allows export controls to be applied to intangibles such as software downloaded from websites. There were furious battles in the United States about whether encryption software was the constitutionally protected academic speech of the professor who wrote it, to which the answer was "Yes, sort of", and whether it could be exported printed in a paper book, to which the answer was "Yes." People printed software on T-shirts that said, "This T-shirt is a munition." Companies such as Microsoft then poured money into civil liberties groups, annoyed that European encryption software firms were establishing markets close to them. Eventually, in the run-up to the 2000 election, Vice-President Gore caved in and removed most of the controls on the export of encryption software.
	Before new Labour came to power, it adopted a strong position against the regulation of cryptography. Once it was in power, the line changed. The Government started putting out proposals for cryptoregulation that eventually, after much opposition and watering down, led to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. At the same time, consultation was started, and accelerated after the Scott report, on modernising the export control regime. A Green Paper came out in 1996 and a White Paper in 1998; the latter recommended the introduction of controls on transfer of technology by intangible means.
	The best reference on this is the Trade and Industry Committee report of 10 December 1998 on strategic export controls. It took a critical view of the White Paper's line on intangible controls—paragraphs 37 to 42 are the key. The Committee found that the Government had no clear idea of the extent of the problem that the provisions sought to address, that there were grave doubts about the practicality of the proposals and fears for their consequences, and that there would be significant economic consequences such as the increase in costs of post-sales software maintenance and the support of online instructions manuals.
	The Committee noted severe worries about the effects on the operation and standing of United Kingdom higher education. It recommended that intangible export controls, if introduced, should be limited to weapons of mass destruction, and that the Government should not agree to an extension of the European Union's dual-use regime, whose aim was to bring exports of dual-use goods outside the EU under harmonised control.
	The Government's reaction was to encourage the EU to put through a dual regulation in 2000 which, on the face of it, extended controls on the export of dual-use goods from the EU to intangible transfers. The legal view taken at the time by the universities was that this regulation had no force in criminal law because it would take primary legislation to introduce a new criminal offence, namely, conveying information to foreigners without the permission of Government. DTI officials claimed that the regulations did indeed have criminal force, but when pressed for an explanation of which Act would be used to prosecute, they were unable to help.
	None the less, the DTI went ahead and started implementing dual-use controls on the community of arms manufacturing companies that it regulates. For such a company, a direct legal challenge could have unpleasant consequences. The view of the Defence Manufacturers Association at the time was—and, for all I know, still is—that the regulations also applied to tens of thousands of other companies which were, for example, incorporating cryptography in all sorts of products and exporting them while blissfully unaware of the alleged new legal situation. The DTI did not educate the companies which were now supposedly subject to licensing.
	The Bill gives the Government almost arbitrary powers to regulate intangible exports. Officials say that it will be used sparingly. However, the EU dual-use regulation, which they will at last be able to enforce, will itself prevent, for example, technology transfers relating to cryptography outside the EU. Other technologies on the dual-use list include a very large part of what the Ministry of Defence considers to be high tech and thus a great deal of what interests universities.
	Officials have been telling two different stories to academia. To Universities UK, they said that the Bill will be used to take powers to license the teaching of certain subjects to certain students. In public—and in Parliament—Ministers denied that that was the case. Lord Sainsbury tried to finesse the issue by saying loudly and often that the licences would be needed not by the students, as the Opposition had said, but by the professors teaching them. That is pure casuistry, as the students' name would also appear on the licence. Universities UK, whose chief executive is Baroness Warwick, did not push the issue.
	Ministers say that the needs of academia will be met by exemptions covering pure science and information being put in the public domain. Yet the current arrangements for research grants for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council require applicants to describe their proposal's "relevance to beneficiaries". Thus a pure mathematician wanting to do work on elliptical curves will describe it as being highly relevant to cryptography, which is the key enabling technology for electronic commerce, thereby putting his head in the noose.
	One academic told me that in 1997 he worked with scientists in Norway and Israel to develop cryptographic software for a competition run by the United States Government to find a replacement for a 1970s-generation encryption standard. DTI officials told him that in future, once they had intangible export controls in place, such an exchange would require a licence. As a result, the research would not get done. The conditions likely to be attached to such licences will not be acceptable to many universities or individual academics. Yet now we see Ministers equivocating as to whether a licence would be needed. In a letter to Baroness Warwick, Lord Sainsbury says that
	"it is likely that exchanges of the type described above would be authorised under the Open General Export Licence for Cryptographic Development."
	Yet that relates to commercial development and thus appears to exclude free software; it needs a formal agreement, which must be registered; it excludes Chinese nationals; it has an onerous record-keeping burden; and it excludes cryptanalysis. No really useful scientific work on ciphers can be done without cryptanalysis. It is like trying to design aeroplanes without either a wind tunnel or computational fluid dynamics codes with which to test the designs.
	Ministers claim that placing information in the public domain will make it exempt. That means that if I were to invent a global positioning system jammer that rendered US smart munitions ineffective, I could put the design on my web page so that the Taliban could download it and build it.
	However, if I were to give a talk at a closed conference—a NATO conference, for example—I should need to obtain an export licence, not only for the talk but for any slides that I wanted to e-mail in advance to the conference organisers. Such a provision would also interfere with academic-industry collaboration, as we would appear to need licences to attend progress meetings. Perhaps all the problems will be sorted out in time—but certainly not tonight or by the Bill.
	Control on the export of goods mainly affects trade. Important though the freedom of movement of goods may be, it is easy to understand the prior claims of public policy on national security. As restrictions on trade threaten jobs, the resulting tension between the requirements of national security and of the economy tend naturally to produce the necessary checks and balances on the export control power.
	Control over the export of ideas is radically different, however. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and gives way much less readily to the claims of the state. Moreover, the natural checks and balances that affect decisions on trade are lacking, as blocking a research project will not normally produce job losses or other evident short-term economic effects. The extension of control from the export of goods to the export of intangibles is thus a radical step with serious implications; it is not merely the closing of a tiresome, recently discovered loophole in existing controls.
	Export control over goods applies straightforwardly to goods being exported; ideas are far harder to control. The difficulty of the attempt to impose control on the export of ideas leads to fears of evasion and thus to subsections 2(c) and 2(d) of clause 2 giving power to impose control over the transfer of ideas—not their export but their exchange inside the UK. It is true that the power is qualified by the words
	"(but only where there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom)".
	That is no help at all, however, as Universities UK has plainly told the DTI.
	First, if the power can be used whenever technology may be used abroad, it can be used in practically every case, because any communication or publication of information may lead to its being used abroad. Secondly, if the power is used to impose controls that apply where
	"there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom",
	leaving it to the publisher or communicator to judge at his or her peril whether the control applies, the risk will be too high for many people. It is certainly obvious that there is always reason to believe that technology taught to foreign students may be used outside the United Kingdom, and therefore a clear power is needed to impose controls and licensing requirements on such students.
	Two exemptions are needed to secure academic freedom; one relating to the public domain, and the second relating to the, in essence, private processes of research before publication. The public domain exemption divides into two elements: first, material already in the public domain and, secondly, the publication of the results of research that puts that material into the public domain. There should be no power to impose control on either of those processes.
	The Minister disclaims any intention of imposing such controls, and points to the exemptions in the existing controls. Exemptions in present controls exist by grace and favour of the Minister. It is essential that they should be entrenched in primary legislation. Academic research involves much collaboration and communication between researchers. It is not made public as the research proceeds, and much of it may never be published. We all know about the false starts and rough drafts on the back of an envelope that are, in essence, private; their communication would not be protected by a public domain exemption. If the preliminary results are shared with research students, that may take place in seminars that are not open to the public, and would thus be equally unprotected by a public domain exemption.
	What is required is an exemption for communications made in the ordinary course of academic research and teaching. The Minister referred to an exemption in existing controls for "basic scientific research", but there are two flaws. The first is that such exemptions are far too important to be left to secondary legislation. The second is that "basic scientific research" is far too narrowly defined, by being limited to exclude work with practical application. The Minister's Department insists that research grant applicants explain their work's "relevance to beneficiaries", thus ensuring that applicants classify their work in such a way as to take it outside the "basic scientific research" exemption.
	The Minister offered a justification for not including the existing exemptions in the Bill: the definitions of "public domain" and "basic scientific research", which are used in the exemptions, are derived from international agreements and might be changed when those agreements are revised; and it would be inconvenient if he had to promote primary legislation to reflect those changes in UK law. Such an explanation fuels the very fears that he is trying to allay. The very purpose of pressing to include those exemptions in the Bill is to make it as hard as possible for them to be removed or changed. The mere fact that the Minister or his officials might agree with one or more of their counterparts abroad that it would suit them to remove or narrow down the exemptions should certainly not be enough to enable them to effect that change in UK law. Academic freedom is far too important to be exposed to dilution through horse-trading between Governments. It is far from reassuring that a Minister with responsibility for science should apparently put his own legislative convenience above the importance of academic freedom.
	Lords amendment No. 4 deals with internal transfers, or imports, of technology, not its export, which is what the Bill should be limited to. The provisions would expose to control academic teaching and collaborative research within the UK—especially the teaching of foreign students—and also the publication in the UK of research work undertaken in this country or abroad.
	The only justification offered for the provisions is that they will prevent evasion by foreigners visiting the UK to obtain controlled technology; but that justification is wholly inadequate. If transfers are made in the UK for the purpose of sending information abroad, in breach of controls, the parties involved are guilty of conspiracy to commit breaches of the controls and can be prosecuted accordingly. The powers are far too wide for that purpose.
	There have been controls on the export of goods for many years, without any equivalent extension for controls on their transfer within the UK "to prevent evasion": the supposed loophole does not exist. It is unnecessary to prohibit the transfer inside the UK, as export by a foreigner is controlled—that is sufficient. It is no answer to say that a foreigner can carry the technology abroad inside his head.
	Controls on intangibles such as technology should apply to the equivalent of controlled documents: the UK argued successfully for that very principle to be reflected in the EU dual-use regulation, where article 2 defines "export" as including
	"transmission of software or technology by electronic media, fax or telephone to a destination outside the Community; this applies to oral transmission of technology by telephone only where the technology is contained in a document the relevant part of which is read out over the telephone, or is described over the telephone in such a way as to achieve substantially the same result."
	It is clear that what should be controlled are not general ideas or the results of education or training, as they are inevitably capable of being carried inside the recipient's head, but the electronic equivalent of technical documents. The foreigner visiting the UK to obtain controlled technology must thus breach export controls to send it abroad, and would be caught by controls imposed under (2)(a) or (2)(b), without (2)(c) or (2)(d) being necessary.
	There are enormous problems with Lords amendment No. 10. It relates to protection of what is already in the public domain or is being published. Subsection (1)(c) deals with unpublished information being exchanged in the course of teaching or research. Subsection (2) makes it clear that there would be no conflict with the secrecy provisions under the Patents Act 1977, or with obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1911 or similar obligations.
	Weapons of mass destruction and their associated missile programmes are a special case. Subsection (l)(c) ensures that controls can still be applied to unpublished information in the case of teaching and research; and subsection (3) tracks the special provisions applicable under article 4 of the dual-use regulation in respect of exports outside the European Community, thus avoiding any apparent conflict between the Bill and the regulation.
	Lords amendment No. 16 relates to clause 7 which is inadequate to protect academic freedom for three reasons. First, it leaves the Minister to decide the matter; all he has to do is to take into consideration the need to do so. When a Minister claims that national security and so on override academic freedom, the courts almost never interfere.
	Secondly, the clause gives no protection to anything to which the general public have no access. That may include the contents of lectures—so far as they are not previously published—and will certainly include all pre-publication interchanges between academic researchers. Thirdly, it fails to impose any duty on the Minister to grant licences under the dual-use regulations.
	So the whole proposition is not founded on reality and it involves a misunderstanding of the academic world in this country. Defence manufacturers agree that there should be an equality of approach. They are not asking to be exempt from certain controls, and they are keen that academics should not be exempt from certain controls. The Bill has not got the right balance, but Lords Amendment No. 10 has, and I very much hope that the Minister will bear that in mind because we shall certainly disagree with him if he presses the matter to a vote.

Alan Howarth: In considering these amendments, we seek to reconcile two imperatives, which, if not in contradiction, are certainly in tension. Of course we need to prevent the transfer of knowledge that would assist terrorists in pursuing their aims, as well as those who seek to develop weapons of mass destruction. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I certainly do not understate the importance of that. Equally, however, we need to protect academic freedom.
	Those who have expressed their anxieties in relation to academic freedom—notably, Universities UK and Save British Science—are not opposed to the Government's legitimate aim of preventing the transfer of technology for use in terrorism or mass destruction, but they are, as I am, critical of the very loose drafting of the clauses that relate to those matters.
	I believe that the proponents of both sides of the argument are acting in good faith. Of course the Government want the universities to thrive if only because they know how important that is to our economy, and the Government encourage our universities to attract foreign students and academics to study and carry out research in this country.
	It is genuinely difficult to reconcile those two imperatives and to find effective means to regulate the exchange of information and ideas, of intangibles. Universities have expressed the concern that activities that are routine in the global academic community—collaborative research, exchanging and debating ideas through e-mails and holding international conferences—could be put at risk under those provisions.
	Hon. Members ought to express our thanks to Members of the other place—unreformed though it may be—for their vigilance in the interests of academic freedom. It might have been possible for Ministers who are members of the Government's legislative programme committee to have noted the possible threats to academic freedom when the Bill was originally proposed. It may have been possible for hon. Members to have observed the same things earlier in our proceedings. The Quadripartite Committee at any rate took evidence from Universities UK, drew the Government's attention to those issues and expressed its hope that a better balance might be struck.
	It is not the first time that their lordships' House has been more vigilant than we have been in regard to academic freedom. Some 10 years ago, when the Further and Higher Education Bill was proceeding through Parliament in the winter of 1991 to 1992—I have to confess that I was the Minister responsible for the clauses on higher education—the Treasury, to my embarrassment and anger, insisted on intruding into the Bill a "he who pays the piper" clause, so enabling the Government to exercise some direction and restraint on academic activity. At the time, a number of peers—in particular, Lord Beloff and Lord Renfrew—made some very fine speeches in support of the principle of academic freedom. They were thorns in our side as the Government, but they were absolutely right to make those points.
	Academic freedom matters profoundly, and Governments should be more careful of it than they are. As my hon. Friend the Minister has noted, the EU dual-use regulation removes certain discretion from the Government, but that does not mean that they should not be extremely careful in exercising their discretion. There is too much instrumentalism in Whitehall's approach to higher education and Governments are not customarily sufficiently tender towards academic freedom and academic sensibilities. No one, however, as far as I am aware, is impugning the good faith and good sense of the Ministers who are responsible for the Bill.
	After all, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a director of the National Council for Civil Liberties in a previous incarnation. She certainly cannot be indifferent to considerations involving academic freedom. The Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury, is passionate about supporting science in our universities. My hon. Friend the Minister has two universities in his constituency, and no one is more diligent in keeping lines of communication open to his constituents, so he does not underestimate those considerations.
	Having made those points, I must say that it is profoundly undesirable that we should have primary legislation on the statute book that a future Government could construe illiberally, so severely damaging academic freedom. Of course there are differences of interpretation about the significance of the drafting of the relevant clauses and amendments. I certainly do not agree with some of the more lurid accounts that have been expressed in previous parliamentary proceedings, but I attach considerable weight to the testimony of Lord May of Oxford, the Government's former chief scientific adviser and an immensely distinguished scientist, who said:
	"We need to be especially careful about how we limit academic freedom. The exceptional circumstances need to be spelled out clearly and carefully, and not in sweeping general terms . . . I support the spirit of this group of amendments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 2002; Vol. 633, c. 1119.]
	I understand that the lawyers who have advised Universities UK have expressed the opinion—although in terms perhaps a little milder than those just used by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—that clause 2, as drafted, may give the Government the right of prior review of scientific publications and that clauses 2 and 3 might give officials the power to require that foreign research students should be licensed and that the present voluntary vetting system should be made compulsory. They suggest that clauses 2, 3 and 4 would threaten routine academic activities in a variety of ways through the power to impose export and trade controls on intangibles—matters such as software, e-mails, presentation slides, manuals and training programmes. They also express a broad concern that the definitions in the Bill
	"are so wide that essentially all science and technology falls within it."
	So their lordships passed amendment No. 10, which is, of course, deficient. The Minister powerfully explained its inadequacies, but the underlying principles are right: the Government should unambiguously affirm in the Bill their commitment to academic freedom, any exceptions should be specific and the safeguards for academic freedom should be clearly stated in primary legislation. Correspondingly, the Government introduced Lords Amendment No. 16, and we should be appreciative of that. However—this is a legitimate concern—it is loosely drawn and there are respectable fears that it could be too weak in its application.
	Lord Amendment No. 16 states that the Government
	"shall have regard to the need to avoid any unreasonable restriction".
	I had hoped that the Government would do rather better and draft a clause that would be more stringent and better focused in its effect. The Secretary of State will be left with a great deal of discretion. We are told that the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated in our domestic law, would provide further safeguards, but as Lord May observed, that is a cumbersome and protracted remedy. However, no better clause has been tabled. I am a little surprised, given the extent of academic concern about this issue, that academic lawyers have not been able to propose a preferable version, but we will have to live with Lords Amendment No. 16.
	In conclusion, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to add whatever safeguards they can to the existing provisions on affirmative procedure, and to requiring modifications to the schedule to be exposed in draft. I was very happy to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reaffirm today the Government's commitment to maximise academic freedom. I hope, however, that the Government will introduce a formal statement that would be justiciable and further case studies to demonstrate exactly what their intention is. The orders will need to be tightly drawn with maximum specificity and minimum scope.
	In preparation of the orders, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will undertake to confer with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and with UUK. I welcome the Government's express willingness this evening to continue to work with UUK.
	The scope for parliamentary scrutiny of orders is always too flimsy, but Parliament must do its best to retrieve its failures in relation to the measure and to seek whatever opportunities that it can to put further stakes in the ground in defence of academic freedom.

Nigel Griffiths: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly in the 60 seconds that are left to me. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) for their thoughtful points.
	The amendment has been considered in great detail in the House of Lords, and, in the spirit with which it has been raised by Baroness Warwick and others representing the universities, in terms of the need to ensure that we do not do anything to impede or attack academic freedoms.
	I assure the House that the Bill will not, in practice, affect the regulation of cryptography in so far as that is controlled by the European dual-use regulations. Cryptography on an open website, however, would be in the public domain, and, therefore, would not be subject to control. We also want to control the fact that a professor who knowingly transmits information to any particular—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 129.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 13 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7 to 9, 11, 12, 14 to 16 and 18 to 30 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill; Dr. Vincent Cable, Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Bob Laxton and Mr. Ian Pearson; Nigel Griffiths to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Angela Smith.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Single European Sky

[Relevant documents: The Thirty-Second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2001–02 (HC 152–xxxii), paragraph 16, on Air Traffic Management and Aviation Safety.]

John Spellar: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13735/99, Commission Communication on the creation of a Single European Sky, No. 12692/1/01, Commission Communication and draft Regulation laying down the framework for the creation of a Single European Sky, and No. 12693/1/01, draft Regulations on the provision of air navigation services, organisation and use of airspace and technical interoperability in the Single European Sky; considers that the establishment of a single air traffic management (ATM) framework in the Community can best be achieved by establishing and implementing common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; considers that military authorities should not be bound by these regulations; agrees that the operation of the single market would be improved by establishing a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace with common design, planning and management, for the authorisation of air navigation service providers and certification of air traffic controllers, for ensuring an equitable and transparent charging regime for air navigation services, and for the development of technical interoperability; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the proposals, but excluding its military part, could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European ATM system, reducing air transport delays and the financial and environmental cost associated with them, the key element being that the Single Sky regulator is endowed with sufficient powers and autonomy to make efficient and effective decisions; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the European Union.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate this important measure on the Floor of the House. The Government attach great importance to the establishment of the single European sky as it will benefit our aviation industry, the travelling public and the environment. We believe that single sky is a good project that offers the only realistic long-term solution to overcoming the difficulties in Europe's rather fragmented air traffic management system that has been coupled with an ever-increasing amount of air travel and air congestion. Single sky offers a much-needed fresh approach to smooth out the inconsistencies across Europe, to quicken the process of market liberalisation in the provision of air traffic services and to enhance airspace capacity while at the same time ensuring that air safety remains paramount. Those are the background factors.
	The origins of single sky date from the heavy air traffic delays of the first half of 1999 that resulted from significant airspace closures. The June 1999 Transport Council responded by requesting the Commission to examine what was being done to minimise delays and to assess whether further initiatives were required. The Commission looked in some detail at the issue and presented to the December 1999 Transport Council its communication entitled "The Creation of the Single European Sky". The proposal subsequently cleared scrutiny in the Lords, but has yet to do so in the Commons.
	Hon. Members may recall that as the development work on single sky was ongoing in the high-level group throughout 2000, it was not felt appropriate to debate single sky at that time. The United Kingdom Government participated fully in the high-level group and we enjoyed the consistent high standards of support and advice that we have come to expect from the Civil Aviation Authority. We also worked closely with National Air Traffic Services and the airlines in developing our policy on this proposal.
	After the presentation of the high-level group report to the December 2000 Transport Council, there was a short hiatus while the issue of Gibraltar airport was resolved satisfactorily. Following the agreement between the respective Governments in the summer of 2001, the Commission released its two further communications on single sky last October which include four draft regulations. The proposals have not yet cleared scrutiny by either of the European Union Committees.
	We recognise that single sky is a complex proposal. This is why, in conjunction with other European member states, we have sought to ensure that single sky offers significant benefits over those that we might realistically expect to arise from the work of the existing Eurocontrol organisation, even taking into account last week's decision by European member states authorising the European Community to sign the accession protocol to join Eurocontrol. The Government believe that that decision will be conducive to the success of single sky because it will help to secure the participation of Eurocontrol, with its wealth of technical expertise, in the single sky process.

Anthony Steen: We are always interested to hear what the Minister has to say and this is no exception. However, although I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I do not understand the difference between Eurocontrol, which is working on giving us a smoother ride throughout Europe, and the single sky initiative. What is the difference between a single sky and the other types of sky?

John Spellar: Eurocontrol deals effectively with technical matters and harmonisation of procedures and technology. The feeling, especially since 1999, is that neighbouring countries in particular need to pull together so that there is greater harmonisation of aviation control. At the moment we have a lumpy and disjointed process that delays flights. That is also partly down to the investment by different countries at different times. As the inevitable increase in capacity does not apply everywhere, we are not able to achieve the best advantages from that.
	I fully understand that there are problems with the policy. We need to work through them. The involvement of the Community will enable the process to work more smoothly. We all agree that the problem exists. Equally, however, we can recognise not so much the deficiencies but the limitations of Eurocontrol. The policy allows us to have an advanced capability that we can match up with the problems.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend is right that the accession of the Community to Eurocontrol will push the process forward. Does he share the slight concern, however, that if the Community chooses to vote as one in Eurocontrol, there is a six-month cooling off period—it is not quite a power of veto—so that the non-EU members can have a good think about the agreement? Given that the problems are multiplying rapidly, does he think that that is too long?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend may think that, but I should explain that it represents considerable progress. Unlike him in his previous occupation, I do not seek perfection; I merely try to ensure that things are more manageable.
	The single sky proposal can be broken down into four parts: the establishment of the single sky committee; a new authorisation system for the provision of air navigation services within the Community; a mechanism to establish a single coherent Community airspace with common procedures; and a proposal to improve technical interoperability between Europe's air traffic service providers.

Anthony Steen: I have got the idea about the sky and the slots, but I am still not clear about defence. Air traffic control excludes defence aircraft. I hope the Minister excuses my ignorance, but how does that fit in with the new sky business? Will all the sky be controlled or will fighter aircraft be excluded?

John Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to that in a moment. He is right to identify the problem, which concerns a number of member states. We have made it clear that we need to resolve that by excluding military aviation so that we can make progress on the civil side. However, we also need to ensure that we get the right working relationship between civil and military airspace, as we have successfully done in the UK, so that we avoid some of the blockages that occur in the European system.
	The framework regulation sets up an over-arching approach to European air traffic management through the establishment of the Single Sky Committee. The committee will be tasked to create a European airspace conceived and managed as a single continuum by the end of 2004, and for ensuring that the action programme to deliver single sky is achieved. The work of the committee is still being refined in the negotiations that are taking place and we are pushing to ensure that it will provide genuine improvements over what can be achieved under Eurocontrol's structure. We are hopeful that the new committee will succeed in that regard.
	On the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), the Government made it clear during negotiations that they will not allow military operations to come within Community jurisdiction under the first pillar of the treaty of the European Union, a view shared by many member states. We believe that our position will be maintained, but I want to assure the House that we are not complacent. We will continue to scrutinise developments closely to ensure that the single sky proposals are not directly applicable to our military air traffic authorities and do not enable the Commission to take control of our military forces.
	The proposal on air navigation services is still being developed.

Lembit �pik: Can the Minister assure me that the Government are also taking seriously concerns in the light aviation community? Members of the gliding community are worried that the provisions will exclude them from European airspace and destroy the sport. Will he accept representations from the British Gliding Association to explain the issue and perhaps find a way forward?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always prepared to receive representations from fellow Members of Parliament, although I am not sure why the provisions on the relationship between civil and military airspace would have that impact. However, we recognise that a considerable number of people participate in gliding. Many of them are associated with the armed forces, especially the Air Cadet Force, and we would not want their interests to come into conflict. For a moment I was afraid that the hon. Gentleman might be talking about how extraterrestrials would come within air traffic control. I recall that they were part of my remit when I was Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I thank the hon. Gentleman for sparing us that diversion. On a more serious note, I await his representations on the gliding issue.
	The air navigation services' proposal is still being developed, but the Government are strongly in favour of it. This is because the UK already has a robust regulatory system for air traffic services that is enshrined in the Transport Act 2000 and the air navigation order. National Air Traffic Services and its controllers are already licensed and operate under stringent safety requirements, which has led to a service of which the UK is justly proud. The Government will not allow these standards to be lowered, and we are convinced that single sky will raise rather than lower safety requirements throughout Europe.
	The proposal on air navigation services is also designed to begin what is, in our view, the overdue process of liberalising the provision of these services. That is particularly the case in the non en-route activities such as airport approach control services, meteorology and aeronautical services. Both NATS and the Meterological Office are uniquely placed to benefit from this initiative and are keen to seek to capitalise on the commercial opportunities that the proposal offers for their expertise.
	In the longer run, the Government hope that NATS will be able to benefit from any developments enabling far more en-route air traffic services to be operated across national boundaries within the Community. The airspace proposal respects the essential need not to compromise each member state's airspace sovereignty. Nevertheless, it stresses that Europe's airspace is a vital resource that must be efficiently managed as a whole rather than the somewhat fragmentary approach that we see today. For example, there are about 30 flight information regions throughout the Community and single sky hopes to replace these with one region in the upper airspace.
	The intention is to create also functional blocks of airspace that are unconstrained by national boundaries. The Government support this notion as it would enable the formation of larger air traffic service providerswe hope that NATS will be one of thesethat can benefit from the resulting economies of scale.

Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend used the expression liberalise. Was that a euphemism for privatise? If so, will he explain whether the decision to create a European single sky, which I am tempted to support, is predicated upon the liberalisation of the markets or the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services? I ask the question because of the assurance of my hon. Friend's predecessor.

John Spellar: My hon. Friend knows that I am prone not to euphemism but more to blunt speech. Therefore, I assure him that this is liberalisation in terms of opening up the market. It is not predicated upon the mechanism of ownership, either in the UK or in any other country. It is, however, about making the most efficient use of the assets that are available, and the most efficient use of the airspace that is available. That has nothing to do with the decisions of individual countries in terms of ownership of their facilities.

Martin Salter: I thank my right hon. Friend for a full answer. Does he accept that those of us on the Government Benches who have grave misgivings about the part privatisation of NATS certainly have no such misgivings about the veracity of his answers nor the honesty and bluntness with which he has always dealt with us? However, I must press him again. One of the central arguments advanced in support of the reasoning behind the need to part privatise NATS was the forthcoming creation of the European single sky. My hon. Friend has correctly suggested that that decision was not predicated on that set of circumstances. Does he understand why many people are left slightly confused and bemused?

John Spellar: I do not entirely accept that. The opportunity presented by the privatisation of NATS was to enable the most efficient operation and the incorporation of new investment that would constitute the leading edge of investment in air traffic services. That capability puts NATS in the best possible position to provide services on a broader framework as we are able to negotiate that within the concept of single sky. Other countries do not necessarily have to follow that route. It might be that they will therefore not be able to have the most effective organisation that is open to them. Therefore, services provided by NATS may be more attractive. We all agree that it is providing a technically proficient service, and an increasingly cost effective one. Decisions needed to be taken in the United Kingdom. These led to the provision of more efficient services in the UK and put British air traffic control in a favourable position in the international environment. That is different from arguments that are advanced as to what should happen in other countries. We come back to the point that I was making about the meaning of liberalise in this context.

David Cairns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters is not so much ownership but separation between those who provide the service and those who regulate it, which is not the case throughout Europe? That is where reform is needed.

John Spellar: There is much in what my hon. Friend says, but we are getting one step ahead of where we need to be moving in a European context. As I have said, there are many air traffic centres throughout Europe. I believe that there are about three times as many as those in the United States, and they are handling a unified air space.
	There is a danger within Europe that the argument can be caught up in ownership issues, which are causing some difficulties in some countries. We saw the results only last week. It is right that we achieve a logical separation of the different issues. We recognise the differences between the regimes that different air traffic control systems operate. Some European operators have been able to raise their charges by their own unilateral decisions. In this country, NATS has to make an application to the Civil Aviation Authority and has to be able to justify increases in charges to the airlines. I think that it is generally accepted that that is the better format for considering the long-term development of a substantial but growing industry. However, it is facing the various challenges that I have mentioned.
	The Government welcome the proposal to improve technical interoperability across the Community's air traffic service providers. We see this as a natural extension of the Community directives that already exist to promote air traffic service interoperability in Europe. Moreover, we believe that less fragmented air traffic services will enhance the overall capacity of the system significantly, reduce the cost of new equipment through more effective procurement practices, and further strengthen air safety.
	Detailed discussions are continuing in the Council's working group. There was also a short discussion on single sky's framework regulation at last week's Transport Council, which I attended. That agreed some common principles on single sky, and the project will now be taken forward as a package on which we expect final agreement some time next year. In the light of the continuing work on the draft single sky proposals, the Government welcome the debate.

Malcolm Moss: The issue of European air traffic control has become increasingly important as a result of the ever-more crowded skies over Europe. Congestion inevitably leads to delays, increased cost burdens and inefficiencies. Last but not least, it leads to fears for safety. According to Eurocontrol's latest assessment, traffic is forecast to grow on average by 4.8 per cent. a year. That is the equivalent of an increase of 26.6 per cent. over the period to 2005. By 2015, it is predicted that there will be a 60 per cent. increase in flights. Other estimates suggest that the number of people flying will double over the next 10 or 15 years. We therefore have a real problem on our hands. Despite continuous efforts to deal with it, serious congestion prevails, particularly in the most intensively used air corridors of Europe. That congestion threatens the future of Europe's aviation market.
	Current national air traffic control arrangements are indeed inefficient. To cite a popular example, Europe has 73 air traffic control centres, whereas the USA has only 20 to manage twice as many flights. The European Commission's answers to these problems are presented in the single European sky proposals that we are debating today.
	At the heart of the proposals is the idea that national air traffic control arrangements should be brought under the remit of an expanded Eurocontrol. Even though operations could still be conducted by national ATCs, any such centralisation of air traffic control is contentious, because there would inevitably be some transfer of powers away from the nation state's control. That is particularly sensitive in relation to military aircraft controla point that has already been raised by hon. Members. In most EU states, the control of military aircraft is integrated to some degree with civilian air traffic control. I hope to return to the issue a little later.
	We in the Opposition accept that the single sky plan would rationalise and, we hope, simplify air traffic arrangements in Europe. That, we believe, will require the EU both to sign up to a new institutional framework and to being part of the decision-making process by working more closely and effectively with Eurocontrol.

Anthony Steen: What one often sees in Europe is duplication and an additional tier of bureaucracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should concern us?

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend anticipates some of the arguments that I shall deploy later in my speech. He is right. It is necessary for the single sky plan to work more closely and effectively with Eurocontrol, which it is not doing at present. The success of the proposal is predicated on that close relationship.
	As we know, a target date of December 2004 has been set for implementation of the proposals. We seriously doubt whether that date is achievable. Given the fairly tight time scale, are the individual states any nearer to ceding control of national airspace than they were a few years ago? We suspect not. How much closer are we to agreement between states on the necessary standardisation of national air traffic control arrangements?
	Bringing the question nearer to home, is our own NATS system compatible with those in other countries? Can it be easily and inexpensively integrated? If not, what do the Government see as the main difficulties? How will that affect the autonomy and financial viability of the NATS operation, given its parlous financial state since the Government's highly contentious part-privatisation and the events of last September?
	One advantage that we do have with NATS is that we have already separated regulation from service provision. That must be an essential starting point in any new EU-wide arrangementsa requirement with which countries such as France would have great difficulty in complying, because those two functions are both still carried out by a single Government Department.
	What of the opposition from air traffic controllers and their unions? We have witnessed graphic examples of such opposition in both Spain and France in recent days. Are the actions of the French unions merely a bargaining position for better pay and conditions, or are they a sign of more fundamental and deep-seated opposition to the creation of a single European sky on grounds of political dogma? Given the part-privatisation of our own NATS, are there real fears that a new pan-European air traffic control system would be ripe for private picking? The EU Commissioner, Miss Loyola de Palacio, pleads her innocence on the matter, but why are the unions still not listening?
	In response to a question from a colleague, the Minister did not say where NATS would fit into the possible privatisation on a more Europe-wide scale, if the proposals went ahead.
	Given that we all agree that there is a problem, what is the best way to solve it? Does it really require a new EU body to deliver the improvements that we want? Do those who are most enthusiastic about such matters insist on the single European sky project not because it will best deliver the answers that we seek, but rather because it fits into the political framework of the Single European Act and other matters integrationist?
	Rationalisation is a precursor of any improvement in service delivery, but could that not be achieved through co-operation and standardisation between neighbouring countries? What about the improvements to technical programmes? It is my understanding that Eurocontrol is working on a number of programmes that, by its own estimates, if all members adopted them, could increase air traffic capacity by some 60 per cent. by 2005. Those programmes include such measures as reducing the vertical separation minimums from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft; enhancing flow management; reducing radio frequency spacing; new modes of radar to improve ground-to-air information transmission; and free-route airspace, giving greater autonomy and control to individual pilots.
	If those measures can be achieved by individual states operating autonomously, and a 60 per cent. improvement is predicted by 2005, that raises the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) posed: why do we need a new arrangement if, by improving the technical programmes, substantial improvements could be achieved in a few years?

Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend kindly mentions my comments. At present, there are navigational air transport services all over Europe catering for the aircraft that fly into their airspace. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am worried that all the measures that come to our Committee tend to be more, more, morenot necessarily better, better, better. The problem with the open sky control concept is the assumption that because it will be managed centrally, it will be better. Does my hon. Friend agree that central management is sometimes worse?

Malcolm Moss: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The thrust of my argument is whether it is necessary to go down that road, when we can achieve improvements on an individual basis by appealing to nation states to improve their own air traffic control. Those who have influence in these matters may well feel that, by signing up to some over-arching EU arrangement, those who wish to dictate and prescribe will have more power to their elbow to deliver the things that they want.
	I have set out a proposal whereby we increase air traffic capacity by up to 60 per cent. without the need to sign up to a centralising body that may become ever more prescriptive, ever more regulatory and ever more outside political control. The big if is whether there could be the level of co-operation necessary to achieve the objectives or whether they are doomed to failure because of individual states insisting on their own autonomy.
	Is it an all-or-nothing scenario? If the EU cannot get agreement, does the whole project gather dust on the shelves? If unanimity is unobtainable, would there not be some merit in working with Eurocontrol to encourage the more forward-looking states to adapt some or all of their programmes? The Minister said nothing about the plan B that will be used if the EU fails to get agreement on plan A. There is an assumption that all the proposals will be signed up to in good time for December 2004, but I suspect that that might prove more difficult than he and others envisage. If that happens, what is plan B? Will he tell the House what the Government intend to do if the plans do not come to fruition?
	Why is it necessary to create this new centralising body when the main problem of congestion lies in the sectors straddling from north to south the centre of the EU area? The zone embraces Italy, Spain, Switzerland I understand that it is not part of the EU, but it is inside the zoneand parts of Germany. I am told that those countries are responsible for about 44 per cent. of air traffic flow management delays and 30 per cent. of bottlenecks. Of course, Greece was once a problem in that context, but the Greeks have addressed the problems and significantly improved their air traffic control. Thus, it can be shown that if a nation state addresses the internal problems of its own air traffic control system, significant improvements can be made.
	As I said, one area that still raises serious concerns is the relationship between air traffic control and defence and security policiesanother point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. The matter was raised at some length last January in the most recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which was entitled Reducing Air Traffic Delays: Civil and Military Management of Airspace in Europe. The report was critical of certain aspects of the Commission's proposals. First, although the Commission attempted to clarify the relationship between the new European sky committee and Eurocontrol, the Committee felt that the proposals did not go far enough. It recommended that
	the Single Sky Proposals for the future of Eurocontrol be spelt out.
	It also discerned a lack of clarity in the relationship between the single sky proposals and the non-EU members of Eurocontrol. The Minister mentioned non-EU members earlier in answer to a question, but he did not deal with the point about the ongoing relationship between non-EU members and the single sky body.
	On civil and military issues, there is still uncertainty about how to accommodate the military. The House of Lords European Union Committee pointed out the contradiction in the Government's position. On the one hand, the Government strongly oppose the idea that military operations be brought under the first pillar of the EU, but on the other they support the concept of flexible use of airspace, which they expect to form part of the Commission's proposals under the first pillar. The Committee recommended that the Government make clear their position on that issue. Given that some, if not all, military operations could not be included in the first pillar, how do the Governmentor the Commission, for that matterpropose to resolve the serious issues that that raises? Does the Minister recognise a need for institutional arrangements outside the first pillar to provide a forum for civil/military liaison, a framework in which sensitive military issues affecting air traffic management can be raised and a way of involving states outside the EU?
	The Minister mentioned Gibraltar. I understand that the agreement between the UK and Spain allowed the European single sky proposals to be launched last year, but does it also allow the EU's accession to Eurocontrol to go ahead? The Minister looks puzzled. What I am getting at is that we have got the agreement to proceed with the single European sky proposals, but does that mean that we can also easily move into an accession to Eurocontrol?
	On the face of it, the proposals have some merit, if they can achieve the laudable objectives that they set out to achieve. However, we have serious doubts that unanimity will be found and agreement reached. In case the matter has not proceeded as planned by December 2004, we are anxious that the Government address that possibility and make proposals of their own.

Gavin Strang: This is the first debate on air traffic services on the Floor of the House since the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, the UK air traffic control system, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) pointed out. The proposals for a single European sky raise questions and concerns, some of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has already addressed.
	One of the most important issues, to which both speakers have referred, is military air traffic control. The European Commission understandably wants to eliminate delays and problems caused by what it calls national frontiers in the sky. That is fair enough, but surely there must be national frontiers in relation to the respective air forces of the member states of the EU. I see that it is the Government's view that the military authorities should not be bound by the regulations.
	Let me turn to the important matter of co-operation between civil and military providers of air traffic services. Our Royal Air Force pilots must train, and some of that training has to be in UK airspace, over these islands. We always said that one of the reasons why the UK air traffic control system has been admired throughout the word is the successful co-operation between the military and the civil side. As everyone present in this debate will know, our military controllers operate on the same premises as the civil controllers. Such co-ordination does not exist elsewhere. I understand that in France, for example, there is no such dialogue between military and civilian controllers. I hope that the new framework of operation that is to be established to facilitate the partial privatisation of NATS will not jeopardise co-operation between our civil and military controllers in any way.
	I turn now to investment in National Air Traffic Services. One of the main arguments advanced by the Government for the partial privatisation of NATS was that it would facilitate investment. We all acknowledge that the financial position of NATS was weakened by the downturn in traffic after the events of 11 September, but the Minister will be aware of the great dismay in Scotland about the announcement by NATS that the new Scottish centre is to be delayed. There is a desperate need for the new Scottish centre.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister may be aware of the statement that I had the privilege to make five years ago this month, with the full authority of the Deputy Prime Minister, confirming our support for the two-centre strategy for the UK. In that statement, it was pointed out that the equipment at Prestwick was almost 20 years old. If it was 20 years old five years ago, hon. Members will need no assistance in working out that it is a quarter of a century old now. Will he give us an idea of when he now expects the investment in the new Scottish centre to come through, so that the work can get under way? Is it still the Government's position that the new Scottish centre will not be completed until 2008 or 2009?
	Another matter that I had the opportunity to deal with when I was Minister for Transport was the establishment of a European aviation safety authorityEASA. The UK supported EASA strongly and we secured under our presidency the decision to proceed with it. I see that the EU Transport Council adopted the regulation establishing EASA only last week. With our tremendous aviation sector, it seemed to us at the time that the UK had a very strong case for securing the headquarters. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House where the decision making has got to with regard to the location of EASA's HQ?
	I should like to say a brief word about liberalisation and competition. We need to be clear that a competitive framework for air traffic control could pose serious difficulties for air traffic services in this country and elsewhere in Europe. No doubt liberalisation and competition could drive down costs and probably prices, but what are those costs? They are the people who have done so well in managing our airspace until nowthe air traffic controllers, engineers and other support staff. Many engineers have taken redundancy from NATS since it was privatised. It would be a great mistake if the huge body of expertise at NATS was disbanded to be replaced by inexperienced new people supplied by private contractors. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern that the agenda for air traffic control in Europe is one of competition and privatisation. How far down the track would the Commission be allowed to drive such a market-oriented policy?
	Of course, we support measures that will reduce delays for holidaymakers and business people in Europe, but always transcending that is the need for the highest attainable standards of security and safety. By the highest standards, we in the UK mean standards that are considerably higher than any that are likely to be set by a regulator. Today's debate is of great importance, because Parliament will have a duty to scrutinise very closely the development of European policy on air traffic control.

Tom Brake: I, too, welcome the opportunity for this topical debate. The newspapers have recently been full of stories about delays, strikes and allegations of pilots on the cheap flights airlines taking short cuts.
	One of the key drivers pushing the single European sky proposals is the issue of air traffic delays. A couple of years ago, it was estimated that the cost of delays is 8 billion eurosroughly 5 billion. It is calculated that about 50 per cent. of delays are due to the airspace management structures in Europe. Huge environmental costs are associated with delays, whether it be aircraft stacking above airports or aircraft that cannot take the shortest possible route from A to B.
	The single European sky appears to have several advantages. First, it could lead to a more efficient system. Other hon. Members have referred to the air traffic control system in the United States, which does a lot more for a lot lessit is estimated to be about 70 per cent. more efficient than Europe's systems. Secondly, it could create extra capacityalthough I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on whether we are over-egging the pudding in that respect, because many of the bottlenecks will remain around European airports, irrespective of whether a single European sky is achieved.
	Thirdly, the single European sky could reduce pressure on air traffic controllers, which might in turn lead to less pressure resulting from the need to train additional controllers. There is a recognised shortage of controllers, which may be exacerbated in the UK by the fact that higher wages are paid abroad. Fourthly, it could improve safety by making flight paths more logical. Finally, as the Minister said, it could mean that the UK industry was well positioned to take advantage of any business prospects.
	The single European sky has potential disadvantages, too. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the political minefield that it represents in terms of perceived or actual loss of sovereignty. There is also the question of military independence. The Minister is right to oppose the extension of the proposals to military operations in which the UK requires flexibility.
	The Government need to answer several questions. First, do they have a clear view about how airspace would be allocated to the different nations in moving away from border-based sectors to more logical sectors that do not represent country borders? Secondly, do they have a clear understanding of how the single sky regulator would operate? Thirdly, we have heard the implementation date of December 2004. I believe that that is optimistic, and that a fallback position is required. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any independent assessment of that implementation date?
	If the Minister can answer those questions, the single European sky should prove to be a positive development. However, it is important that harmonisation does not lead to a lowering of standards; British standards, practices and procedures must still prevail. Nor should it lead to a loss of military independence, so the military opt-out that the Minister proposes is welcome. Harmonisation is necessary for safety reasons and because it provides benefits to the consumer and to the environment. For those reasons, Liberal Democrat Members support the proposals.

John McDonnell: I shall deal first with the issues on which there is general agreement. On the inevitability of Euro-sky, there is general agreement that at some stage over the next decade there will be a need for the integration of regulation across Europe. There is general agreement that that may lead to closer co-operation and, in turn, economies of scale, as outlined by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
	There is general agreement, as there was in the debate about air traffic control processes in this country, that there should be a split between regulation and service providers. There are concerns about whether the proposals can be delivered by December 2004, especially given the delaying mechanisms of the six-month consultation period and the veto that could be exercised by non-Commission members. It is generally recognised in the aviation industry that a complex process of negotiation and consultation is involved.
	Those are the points of agreement. The points of concern being expressed by those who work in, or have a knowledge of, the industry are that the proposals could becomepardon the puna launch pad for privatisation on a European scale, following what happened to national air traffic control services in this country. Industrial action is occurring in many parts of Europe because of those anxieties.
	It is worth while for the Government to state that the proposals have nothing to do with privatising air traffic control services throughout Europe. It would be useful if, as a Government, we had the humility to explain to our European colleagues that we had experienced the privatisation of air traffic control services and that we had learned our lesson.
	I do not want to go into detail about the air traffic control experience so far, but I shall briefly mention some facts. Last Christmas, the air traffic control workers in my constituency could not have their wages because of a cash-flow problem; the airline company group that has taken over air traffic control returns month after month for additional public subsidies; the Government are so desperate for the British Airports Authority to bail out air traffic control services that they are willing to bribe it with a new runway at Heathrow.
	I do not want to go into such detail about the failure of air traffic control services as privatised by the Government. However, despite assurances so far, some of the documentation that the Government have published links the single European sky proposal with privatisation. I am referring to the helpful bundle of documents that the Vote Office provided, especially the report entitled Explanatory Memorandum on European Community Document, which was submitted by the Department for Environment, Local Government and the Regions on 18 January 2000. It was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is no longer an Under-Secretary of State and has returned home to the Back Benches. He has clearly maintained his interest in air traffic control matters, and is not with us tonight. I do not believe that he wanted to be associated with anything that happened previously.
	On the single European sky proposals, the document states:
	Similarly, the Commission's assertion that commercial sector methods and expertise should be employed in air traffic service provision . . . is fully in keeping with current UK thinking.
	Yet again, the Government are perceived as a proselytiser for privatisation of air traffic control throughout Europe. There is no reference in the documents to a Commission proposal for advocating the use of commercial sector methods and expertise in air traffic control.
	The high-level group's proposals make only one reference to a link between the environment for air traffic control and the discussion about monopoly services. The group said that although core air traffic control was a monopoly, there was an opportunity for competition for ancillary services. It did not refer to the introduction of commercial practices in air traffic control.

David Cairns: For the sake of completeness, my hon. Friend should include the phrase that he left out of the quote from the document signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It says that air traffic control should be regulated robustly. That does not detract from the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but it is important that robust regulation forms part of the Government's strategy.

John McDonnell: I omitted the phrase not to be disingenuous but because I said in my introductory remarks that there was no dispute between us about the separation of service delivery and regulation. Robust regulation has been the standard that British air traffic control services set the world. That is why I did not refer to the phrase. However, my hon. Friend can understand the anxiety that the fact that the UK Government are advocating the introduction of commercial sector methods and expertise causes air traffic controllers throughout Europe. We can understand the reason for their anxiety that the proposal may be a stepping stone to privatisation.
	It is worthwhile for the Government to state on the record that we have learned from our experience of privatising air traffic control in this country and that we do not advocate privatisation as part of the open sky policy. It is worth stating that we want to consider integration without privatisation. Two thousand air traffic control staff have been laid off or are under threat of losing their jobs in Britain because of part-privatisationso no wonder air traffic controllers in Europe are anxious about their jobs when the British Government advocate privatisation on the back of a Euro-sky proposal.
	The expression that we are all Thatcherites now is inappropriate in the context of air traffic control. Privatisation has failed in almost every other transport sector, and is failing in our air traffic control services. We have never experienced so many breakdowns, loss of morale on such a scale, so many job losses or such underinvestment. British air traffic control has approached bankruptcy many times. A statement that our Euro-sky policy is not based on privatisation would be welcomed throughout Europe.

David Cairns: Like other hon. Members, I shall not labour the points of agreement between us, other than to say that I welcome the proposals. They are extremely important, not just for the industrywe are talking in terms of billions of pounds for the industrybut for our individual constituents who experience dreadful delays. They work very hard all year round, get a couple of weeks' holiday, then spend huge chunks of time at the beginning and end of their holiday sitting around in airport lounges. That is not a pleasant experience, and it is one that those of us who are frequent fliers also encounter. If we can cut delays and increase capacity in the skies, the provisions will benefit not only a big industry but individuals.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) mentioned that the national boundaries that exist on the ground are often utterly meaningless at 30,000 ft; the rivers, mountain ranges and forests that have given rise to national boundaries become less important in the open skies. Such boundaries should not, therefore, be a sufficient reason to hold us back from moving towards a new system and a new way of thinking about air traffic management. We all agree that reform is needed; it is perhaps the nature of the reform that is causing some consternation.
	I was slightly confused by some of the comments by Members. On one hand, they appeared to assert that the provisions would result in duplication, with more committees and more bureaucrats considering the issue. On the other, we heard the assertion that the measures would centralise the system and introduce just one way of doing things. There was a slight contradiction there. We cannot duplicate and streamline at the same timeor perhaps we can, but I do not think that that was quite the thrust of the argument coming from the Opposition Benches, where there just seemed to be confusion.
	As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, we are talking not of centralisation but of greater harmonisation. That will involve the harmonisation of systems, software, hardware and training. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the shortage of trained air traffic controllers in this country. Part of the difficulty in allowing air traffic controllers to take their labour to other parts of Europe is caused by the different specifications involved in different air traffic control training programmes. If we could achieve greater harmonisation there, we would have greater fluidity of movement of labour across the continent, which would be all to the good.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the fear that the measures are about privatisation. Privatisation and methods of ownership are not prescribed in the document. What is prescribed, howeverand my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to itis the unacceptable situation in which the providers of the service are also the regulators. That situation is untenable and ought to be challenged.
	There has also been discussion about the civil and military aspects of air traffic management. An example from my own neck of the woods, which involves another medium of transport, is that of the flow of traffic on the River Clyde. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh will know that the Clyde port authority is the largest such authority in western Europe, and is very busy because of the amount of commercial and military shippingincluding Trident nuclear submarinesthat uses the river.
	Until a few years ago, there was a staggering lack of co-operation between the harbourmaster based in Greenock, who was in charge of the commercial shipping, and the military personnel based at Faslane, who were in charge of the naval shipping. The harbourmaster would often send ships off down the coast, only for them to turn the corner and see seven French frigates coming up for an exercise that he knew nothing about. There has been much more co-operation at that level recently, and it is clearly not beyond the wit of Governments to ensure that such co-operation takes place in the skies above us. The Minister for Transport, as a former Defence Minister, seems ideally placed to bridge that gap.
	Those who say that privatisation intrinsically raises issues of safety often point to Railtrackalthough that has not happened in this debate. I have said repeatedly that I feel no less safe on a British Airways flight today than I did when British Airways was a nationalised industry, 15 years ago. I do not believe that it is axiomatic that the involvement of private sector expertise necessarily compromises safety. Of course a robust regulatory system must have safety at its core, and I hope that the Minister will convince us that he agrees with that.
	There seems still to be some confusion about the residual role of Eurocontrol in a single-sky environmentparticularly with regard to the EU's position as an acceded member of Eurocontroland about the relationship between Eurocontrol and the EU's new single sky committee. I have studied the documents in some depth, but I am still not sure about the exact relationship between Eurocontrol, the European Union as an acceded member of Eurocontrol, and the EU single sky committee. I hope the Minister can clarify the position.
	In general, howeverlike most Members who have spokenI welcome the proposals, which I consider very necessary. They will be costly, but the cost of doing nothingthat is, increasing delayswould be greater, to the airlines, to the wider economy to which the airlines are tremendously important, and to our constituents who have to waste time in airports. I am pleased that action is now being taken.

Anthony Steen: I hope the House will forgive me for not having listened to all the speeches. The Minister, of course, will have listened to all of them assiduously, and taken on board all that was said.
	I must declare a number of interests. We have to declare so many interests that we must be careful not to overlook any. I think I must declare my membership of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, but if that is not necessary I declare it anyway. I am also an adviser to Airlines of Great Britain. In fact I have been an adviser to a number of airlines, both as a former practising lawyer and as a politician. I am sorry to say, however, that most of the airlines I have advised have gone bust, so I have not many left to declare. I do not know whether that has anything to do with my advice, or whether they have all got bigger, or worse. I think I have to declare the interest anyway, although the airlines I have advised have not done terribly well. One or two have kept going, however.
	I shall be brief, as I know the debate must finish at 9.15 pm. I suspect that the Minister called it just to get the feeling of the Houseif there is any feeling. Not many people turn up for aviation debates: the subject is technical, people do not really understand it, and they have other things to do. It is obviously important, however, for the Minister to get some feeling of what the House is thinking. I do not know whether he has got that feeling, or whether the House has been thinking or saying anything usefulor, indeed, whether it really matters. We have tremendous discussions in the European Scrutiny Committee, but it does no good. The Government go on doing whatever they want, and Europe goes on doing whatever it wants. Nevertheless, I think it useful for the Minister to take account of what is said in a personal capacity, although I do not think he will do anything with it.
	What concerns me is whether the operation of a single market would be improved by the establishment of a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace. It seems rather as though a wizard were to enter Europe, wave his wand and say, This is all one airspace. The airspace has come into being over a number of years as an airspace over the countries concerned, which have built up quite efficient air navigation schemes. People may not think them efficient, but very few accidents have been caused by error other than human error, and the machinery and mechanical equipment for navigation aids is now excellent. Ours in Britain is state of the art.
	I am not sure why the Government believe that another body with more staff and bureaucracy will be better. I am reminded of the fact that if the word safety is used in the House, any rule or regulationany statutory instrumentis passed immediately because no Member will ever vote against safety. Another buzzword is security: as soon as it is mentioned, the regulation or statutory instrument will go through. The most recent example is the word hygiene. Any measure deemed to be hygienic, or related to health and safety, will be accepted.
	In this instance, everyone wants faster planes and more slots. Everyone wants to think the system is safer, and everyone assumes that if another body is created it is bound to be safer. That is not necessarily the case. Let us compare air traffic control in Polandhopefully, it will be part of the enlargement of the EUwith that in Britain. They are miles apart. Such systems probably work over their own space, but I am not sure about trying to make them uniform, which is what this idea is about.
	The Minister is a very good salesman. He will tell us that this is the best thing since sliced bread. He will use the word safety all the time and we will all say that this is wonderfulbut is it wonderful? I do not know how we are going to judge. Is it ever going to happen? Is there ever going to be a wizard waving his wand over all the skies of the EU? Remember that another 12 EU countries will come in. No sooner will the sky be sorted out over the first 15 but another 12 will come on board.
	This is a lovely idea; we all like it. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. We have had a good run for an hour or so and he has heard the views of some of his colleagues, who are using the debate for various reasons. It does not affect what he is doing. It is courteous of him to come along to tell us all his ideas. He wants to wave that wand over the sky and make it all one place, but I hope he will agree in reality that not much will happen other than this one-and-a-half-hour debate on whether it is a good idea.
	With regret, I say: full steam ahead, get on with it, let us get it going tomorrow morning. The Minister will know that it is unlikely and that in 10 years we will not have seen anything at all. I thank him on behalf of the House for coming along and doing what he has done. I hope that I have thrown in my two pennyworth in this useful debate.

John Spellar: I do not recall that it was entirely optional to attend this evening, but I am delighted that we were able to provide the opportunity for a constructive debate. One often says from the Dispatch Box that it has been a constructive debate, but on this occasion I actually mean it. The comments have largely been directed at the issue. Rightly, matters have been raised that have not necessarily been resolved but are still under discussion in Europe. I shall try to deal with some of those during my contribution, but may need to write to hon. Members.
	I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will allow me not to follow him all the way down his various arguments, which might be slightly diversionary. The fact that I do not do so should not be construed as agreement with a number of those arguments. I disagree with some of his comments, but he takes a keen interest in the aviation industry and is a strong representative on behalf of his constituents who work at the airport. We have worked constructively on a number on issuesfor example, on the issue of kirpans for staff at Heathrow and at other airports.
	What I found useful about the discussion was that there was a broad recognition of the existence of a problem: there are difficulties in European airspace capacity and that leads to bottlenecks. That in turn leads not only to delays but, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) rightly pointed out, to considerable environmental consequences: for example, the time that aircraft spend in the air needlessly using fuel.
	There was an attempt to create a distinction between airspace and the impact on airports, but it is increasingly recognised that if there are delays in en-route airspace, particularly with the tight timetables that many of the no-frills airlines operate on, those can have considerable knock-on effects at airports and on schedules, and should not be underestimated. That is particularly a problem with a number of the bottlenecks in European airspace.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that we would use the issue of safety as a way of carrying the proposal. The situation is quite different. Safety is a prerequisite; it is an absolutely essential component that must underlie any system that we have, whether the current system or an improved one. It is essential and does not affect the argument one way or the other. We are talking today about capacity and, consistent with safety, realising the capacity to deal not only with existing problems, but with the increasing demand for air travel. We will put that in the wider public domain with the regional airport studies that will be published shortly. We are dealing with one aspect of the increase in demand and the need for capacity.

Anthony Steen: As I recall, during the terminal 4 inquiry, the deal was for 275,000 movements at Heathrow a year. As a result of navigational improvements, the figure is up to 400,000 movements a year. That has happened incrementally. At the same time, planes are getting bigger, so we could end up with a situation in which we do not need more airspace. Instead, there will be a need for ever bigger planes. Has that been considered?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me further into issues that will be debated publicly in a short time. He is right to say that larger planes are enabling more people to travel, without there being necessarily a commensurate increase in air movements. However, running parallel to that, there has been a huge increase in point-to-point flights. That is particularly the case with many of the no-frills airlines, which are operating not necessarily from major hub airports but from many others. That does not add to congestion at hub airports, but it does add to congestion in en-route airspace.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) referred to the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. I can assure them that the Government have not shifted one inch in our commitment to the two-centre strategy for National Air Traffic Services, including the Prestwick centre. The only issue is timing, for obvious reasons that have been mentioned. We shall ensure that NATS builds the centre as soon as future traffic forecasts make it viable to do so.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) asked why we could not proceed voluntarily through Eurocontrol. Eurocontrol has done a good job on many of the technical harmonisation aspects, but it is essentially a voluntary agreement between 31 member states and progress, understandably, has been slow. A number of major Eurocontrol programmes have been delivered late, or have not been as effectively implemented as we would have hoped. The greater authority of the EU allied to the technical capacity of Eurocontrol is a recipe for the more rapid progress that, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe to be increasingly urgent.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about the 2004 deadline and whether it was optimistic. In the Council working group, progress has been slower than we hoped, but we still believe that there is every prospect that the single sky framework will be in place by the end of 2004 as planned. It has been recognised that implementation will be a gradual process that will be spread over a number of years.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh asked about military airspace. It is true that military aviation accounts for only 4 per cent. of aviation, although there are some localised issues related to that. However, that does not detract from the essential position; we have made it perfectly clear in the negotiations that we will not allow military operations to come within Community jurisdiction, under the first pillar of the treaty of the EU. As I also said, that view is shared by several other states.

Tom Brake: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), if civil and military air traffic control no longer work togetherif the former is conducted on the basis of a single European sky and the latter is kept separatemight that not lead to less harmonisation, and therefore to an increased risk to safety?

John Spellar: No, I certainly do not see that happening. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK has had considerable success in harmonising requirements and ensuring compatibility in terms of resources. However, it is clear that this is a matter of national competence, which is an extremely important principle for many other reasons.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also asked about NATS compatibility with the single European sky. As he knows, NATS is widely recognised as a leading air traffic service provider. It has invested heavily in new equipmentnotably at Swanwickand is already ahead of the rest of Europe in that regard. We do not envisage the single European sky placing an additional financial burden on NATS; indeed, it could win more work in a liberalised air traffic market.
	I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that undertakings with an individual state in respect of ownership have no bearing on the liberalisation of air traffic control; such matters are rightly those for the individual state concerned. As I said in my opening statement, the route that we have taken enables us to provide better, cost-effective services for the travelling public. However, privatisation of individual entities is not a prerequisite to liberalisation of the market.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister talks about liberalisation of the European market, but one of the objectives is to reduce the 73 existing air traffic control centres to something more manageable, which must involve a dilution of the importance of the nation state and of national control. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, surely many centres will therefore be ripe for amalgamation and takeover by the private sector.

John Spellar: That is not a prerequisite. [Interruption.] No, liberalisation of the market, coupled with transparency in accounting procedures to ensure a level playing field, is perfectly compatible with different forms of ownership. It is right to debate this issue, but there is no prerequisite in terms of the European single sky and liberalisation of the market.

John McDonnell: It is accepted that there is no prerequisite, but air traffic controllers across Europe are anxious that the UK Government are becoming advocates of privatisation as the next stage in the process. An assurance from the Minister that the Government are not in fact advocating privatisation would go some way towards reassuring many of them.

John Spellar: We are not advocating the idea that other countries run their businesses in a particular way, save that we should all work for the most effective use of European airspace, in the manner outlined in the single European sky proposals from the European Commission.
	This has been a constructive debate in which the principal issues have been aired. It is also clear that there is some considerable way to go, and that the subject is one to which we shall doubtless return. However, we should bear in mind the fact that there is widespread recognition of the underlying problems, and of the need to make progress on behalf of the aviation industry andperhaps more significantlyof the travelling public.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13735/99, Commission Communication on the creation of a Single European Sky, No. 12692/1/01, Commission Communication and draft Regulation laying down the framework for the creation of a Single European Sky, and No. 12693/1/01, draft Regulations on the provision of air navigation services, organisation and use of airspace and technical interoperability in the Single European Sky; considers that the establishment of a single air traffic management (ATM) framework in the Community can best be achieved by establishing and implementing common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; considers that military authorities should not be bound by these regulations; agrees that the operation of the single market would be improved by establishing a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace with common design, planning and management, for the authorisation of air navigation service providers and certification of air traffic controllers, for ensuring an equitable and transparent charging regime for air navigation services, and for the development of technical interoperability; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the proposals, but excluding its military part, could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European ATM system, reducing air transport delays and the financial and environmental cost associated with them, the key element being that the Single Sky regulator is endowed with sufficient powers and autonomy to make efficient and effective decisions; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the European Union.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Authorisation of Human and Veterinary Medicines

That this House takes note of European Union document No. 13361/01, Commission Report on the experience gained as a result of the operation of the procedures for granting marketing authorisations for medicinal products and No. 14591/01, draft Regulation laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and draft Directives amending Directives 2001/83/EC and 2001/82/EC on the Community codes relating to medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products; supports the Government's position of broad agreement to the proposed amendments, and the overall aims of the Review; supports the Government's ongoing work with Member States to build on the current system of medicines regulation to ensure it continues to contribute to the protection of human and animal health, also to promote the further development of a single market in pharmaceuticals, prepare the regulatory regime for enlargement, and provide a competitive environment for the pharmaceutical industry; notes European Union Document No. 6240/02, draft Directive amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards traditional herbal medicinal products for human use; and supports the Government's position of broad agreement to the proposed amendments in order to achieve a regulatory regime for traditional herbal medicines which improves public health protection while maintaining consumer choice.[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 111.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 5, 6 and 7.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Extradition

That the draft European Union Extradition (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 100) (HC 869), on 2001/02 Special Grant for Rate Relief in Respect of Hardship Caused by Foot and Mouth Disease, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 30.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 9, 10 and 11 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Defence

That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

Industrial Organisation and Development

That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Procedure

Ordered,
	That Ian Lucas be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Huw Irranca-Davies be added.[Joan Ryan.]

Public Accounts

Ordered,
	That Mr. Paul Boateng and David Davis be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Ruth Kelly be added.[Joan Ryan.]

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.[Joan Ryan.]

Eric Forth: It is all very well for the motion to be moved formally. However, this important motion starts with a phrase with which we have become all too familiar
	notwithstanding the practice of the House
	so we might have been entitled to an explanation from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the House. Neither of them is present and that practice has become all too frequent. It well illustrates the Government's attitude to the House of Commons. The motion seeks to change our normal practice on something as important as the Finance Bill of all things, but we have not even had the courtesy of an explanation as to why that is happening.
	Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not understand his motion, but I do not expect that of the Leader of the House. I would have thought that he understands it all too well. However, neither of them are here to explain to the House what is going on.

Paul Tyler: We should draw the House's attention to the fact that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House are not here, no one from their Departments is either.

Eric Forth: Sadly, that is the case. Many Government Whips are present, and that suggests that the Government expect their Members to vote the motion through willy-nilly without the courtesy of an explanation from anyone on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] In fairness to the Leader of the Househe knows that I am always fair to himhe has just turned up.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend think that he should start his comments again so that the Leader of the House can hear them?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to find himself guilty of breaching Standing Order No. 42 by obeying the advice of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).

Eric Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just about to explain that I have not even got into my preamble yet. The Leader of the House has not missed anything of substance and neither have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Leader of the House has not seen fit to provide us with an explanation despite the fact that the game is given away by the phrase notwithstanding the practice. The details of the motion entitle us to a measure of alarm. Normallyyou know this almost better than anyone in the House, Mr. Deputy Speakerthe Finance Bill is very much regarded as a special case by the House of Commons. That is as it should be, because the provision of finance and the raising and spending of moneys are among the things about which we in the House are extremely jealous, and rightly so. Therefore, we have always given the Finance Bill a very special place and we have always treated it with very great care. For example, we deal with many aspects of it on the Floor of the House and then other more detailed provisions upstairs in Committee. The motion suggests that more than one stage of the Finance Bill
	may be taken at any sitting.

Brian Iddon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when his Government were in power, they cut the grant for all gypsy site refurbishments? Will he tell us why?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that very important point. When my party had the privilege of being in government, we allowed a proper amount of time to deal with such matters. The House would have given those subjects more than adequate timeboth on the Floor and upstairs in Committee. I do not know whether he knows, but we almost certainly did not try to deal with more than stage of the Finance Billeven the one containing the measure about which he has reminded usin any one sitting.
	I suspect that, given the importance of that measure, it would have been properly considered in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Even if the hon. Gentleman was not happy with the outcome, in the good old days when my party had the privilege of being in government, proper time would have been allowed by the House to consider a matter even as detailed as that, never mind the great issues about the raising of revenue and the concomitant expenditure that confront the House in a Finance Bill.
	A mysterious proposition is before the House and we are left wondering why the Government would want to give such special treatment to the Finance Bill. I am forced to speculate on that because no explanation has been given. It is just possible that one of the arguments might have been that we do not have enough time to treat the Finance Bill in the traditional way, but that argument does not stand up.
	Hon. Members will be aware not only of the fact that a number of make-weight measures are on the Order Paper for this week and next week, but of the proposed date of our rising. The Leader of the House was kind enough to say to us last Thursday that the House would rise on 24 July subject to the passage of business. Does he want to rush the Finance Bill through with unseemly haste so that the House can adjourn early? I hope not. I like to think that he would not dare to come to us with such a proposition.
	If we dismiss that speculation as outrageous even by the standards of this Government and Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are forced to consider other possibilities. One of them might be that the Government are so ashamed of what is in the Finance Bill that they do not want it to be properly scrutinised. I incline to the view that that is probably a more credible explanation than the Leader of the House wanting us to go off on our hols early. Again, however, I can only speculate because we have not been told.
	The right hon. Gentleman came rushing back into the Chamber having been told that the House was impertinent enough to want to query the measure, which he assumed would go through on the nod. I hope that he has a thorough briefing from his assiduous officials so that he can give us at least one credible reason why the motion has been tabled. [Hon. Members: Where are they?] I assume that hon. Members are referring to a certain box at the end of the Chamber where officials are wont to sit. That comment is probably out of order, however, and I would not want to be caught out in such a way. Some of us have been around long enough to avoid that trap.
	We have a parliamentary conundrum. We have before us an important, possibly ground-breaking measure that may well set a precedent. If the House agrees exceptionally to the measure after hearing a proper explanation of it, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman gives an undertaking that it will not be regarded as a precedent. I want to be reassured that the Government or the Leader of the House will not quote it as a precedent if we agree to it. We slip all too easily into bad practices in which something is brought before the House and slipped through on the QT at an early stage of the evening, and the night is still young in parliamentary terms.
	The right hon. Gentleman should give a full explanation of why he wants the measure. Is it to do with an early recess? Is it to do with his shame at the Bill's content? When he explains his reason for the motion and if we accept it, I hope that it will be explicitly stated that it is not a precedent and will not be quoted as such by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should he ever deign to come to the House. We need to be assured that we will treat each future Finance Bill on its merits. Only if we get that explanation will we be satisfied and allow the measure to proceed.

Paul Tyler: I thought there was some levity in the approach to the subject. That disturbed me because it is a serious matter, and I strongly agree with the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
	In recent years, Finance Bills have got longer and longer and have become increasingly complex. This year's Bill is no exception. The articulation of the debatequite apart from its lengthis important if the House is to have a proper opportunity to assess all the complex issues that arise from it.
	In recent weeks, some major, serious Bills have not received proper attention in Committee or in the House as a result of the programming and guillotining of those measures. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is an obvious example. We must ask those on the Government Front Bench on precisely what grounds the usual practice is being broken on this occasion, as it would appear. No attempt so far has been made to explain the precedents for this practice. Before we even reach the question whether it should be a precedent for the future, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we should surely at least be told whether there have been precedents in the recent past for approaching the Finance Bill in this way.
	We should never forget that the Finance Bill is unusual. That is because it is the House alone that considers the measure. There is no second chance. There is no second guessing at the other end of the building. The Lords cannot consider the mistakes that are made in this place. Only we can do that, and only during consideration of remaining stages. If those stages are hurried in any wayif they are managed in such a way to achieve a rapid result rather than a comprehensive resultthat would be entirely wrong.

Eric Forth: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He might want briefly to explore the implications of consideration of all stages in one day. It strikes me that if, for example, an error were to be found during one stage of our deliberations, it might procedurally be difficult, or even impossible, to deal with that error in the immediate subsequent stage. By conflating consideration in that way, we would have less chance of picking up what could potentially be a serious error in the Finance Bill, of all things, in our usual procedures.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has more than adequately made the point to which I was coming. A manuscript amendment may be appropriate in some circumstances, but not on a Finance Bill. I served in Committee on a Finance Bill. At 3 am the Minister responsible explained that we were trying to correct an error that had been made the previous year. I asked whether he could recall, or perhaps his officials could, at what stage in the night in the previous year the mistake had been made. It had been made in the middle of the night. That is what is unusual about the Finance Bill. Not only is it extremely

Andrew Stunell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the high proportion of the contents of each Finance Bill that consists of correcting mistakes that were left over from previous Finance Bills? Does he agree that to accelerate that process is to worsen it?

Paul Tyler: If I did not know my hon. Friend so well, I would think that to be a planted question. As he is such an independently minded Member, I know that not to be the case.
	I was about to say that during consideration of the Finance Bill on the occasion to which I was referring, part of the previous year had been spent correcting another part of a previous Finance Bill, passed two years previous to that. That is what is so significant about a Finance Bill. There are some members of the Treasury team on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure that they will be the first to concur that every year the Chancellor has to bring forward some proposals to correct mistakes made not necessarily by a previous regime but in a previous year.
	The Finance Bill is significant in that respect. It must be extremely precise. That is why it is exceptionally important in this instance that we have proper management of the time given to the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I ask the hon. Gentleman, for the information of the House, whether he received any indication that this matter would appear on the Order Paper today. I understand that we, the official Opposition, received no such indication. Despite the abbreviation of the way in which we scrutinise Bills now, at least there is some consultation on them between both sides of the House. It is a heinous crime that on something as important as the Finance Bill, no discussion has taken place across or through the usual channels.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I shall cut short my remarks to enable an occupant of the Government Front Bench to respond to that. However, it is not only a matter of indication; the convention in the House on a matter of this sort is that there is consultation, not merely a unilateral statement of what the Government intend to put on the Order Paper. There should be consultation with the Opposition parties for the good order of business in the House. Surely that is what we should all be interested in.
	The handling of the Bill may have justification, but as far as I and my Chief Whip have been involved, and I understand that it is a similar case with those on the Conservative Front Bench, there has been no consultation or explanation whatever. That is a break with the conventions of the House. Yes, there are elements of the Order Paper that can be issued as a Government diktat or fiat, but usually the business of the House involving a major Bill, let alone a Finance Bill, would be a subject for consultation.
	Now that the Leader of the House and senior members of the Treasury team are with us, I very much hope that they intend to speak on the matter. It would be quite outrageous if they simply pushed it through by the force of numbers, without any explanation, given that the proper way to do business in the House is that we, the House, decide how we handle our businessnot the Government, but all Members of the House.
	I am sure that hon. Members on the Government side will agree, as will the Father of the House, who is present and who is always a great protector of the interests of the House, that it would be against all precedent and all convention for the motion to be carried forward without proper discussion and consultation between the parties. I hope that we will now get an explanation and that there will be a proper discussion before we come to a conclusion.

Robin Cook: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for this unexpected pleasureunexpected, in part, because I announced the business for the next week last Thursday, and unexpected also because, contrary to what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, the order was laid on Thursday and has been on the Order Paper since last Friday. [Hon. Members: Ah!]
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked me for an assurance that the order would be no precedent. I can tell him that tonight's order will form no precedent because the Order Paper and the history of the Journal of the House of Commons are littered with precedents to the same effect. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 739 of Erskine May, which states that
	the third reading of the Finance Bill has frequently been taken immediately after consideration
	that is, consideration on Report
	when such an order has been made.
	The right hon. Gentleman will be particularly interested to know that there is a footnote, No. 5. When I refer to footnote 5 for the precedent for taking the Third Reading after consideration on Report, I find that it quotes 199596. [Laughter.] I hope my hon. Friends will allow me to continue. I think that the look on the right hon. Gentleman's face is the nearest that he is capable of getting to being sheepish. I managed to get through school without studying modern studies, but as I recall 199596, it was the right hon. Gentleman's party that was in power at the time, and he was a member of the Government of the time who created that precedent.
	As to the reason for the order, I remind the right hon. Gentlemanwho is present every week for the business statement and hears the business announced every timethat virtually every Bill whose remaining stages we have considered in this Session has been taken on Report, with the Third Reading immediately afterwards. Most of those Bills have been the subject of a programme motion which set that out from the start.
	There is no programme motion covering this Finance Bill. The reason is that the right hon. Gentleman's own party requested that it should not be the subject of a programme motion, which meant that we would require such an order to handle the remaining stages. I make no complaint of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's party requested that there be no programme motion. My understanding is that the proceedings in Committee have been perfectly amicable, carried out by agreement, with both sides fully delivering on the agreements that they achieved in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman now looks rather more than sheepish.
	At no stage during the proceedings in Committee has the right hon. Gentleman's party asked for more time. At no stage has it disputed the allocation of time in Committee. Indeed, last week's Committee sitting rose early because members ran out of things to say about the Finance Bill. I understand that it is expected that the Committee proceedings will finish at tomorrow's sitting. In those circumstances, I think that two full days in total to consider the remaining stages is perfectly adequate provision. It is adequate partly because this Finance Bill has already been through more consultation with the industry, outside bodies and financial services than any previous one. Many of the clauses were seen in draft form by the industry, which may partly explain why the Opposition ran out of things to say in Committee.

Eric Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to the Leader of the House for his history lesson and analysis of the Bill to date, but will he give me the undertaking that I requested? Notwithstanding the explanation that he has just given, which is just about adequate for the purposes of the motion, will he go that step further and give us an undertaking that, if we agree to it for the reasons that he has kindly given us in respect of this Bill, it will not be quoted as a precedent for doing the same thing again for future Bills without similarly valid reasons?

Robin Cook: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now scrabbling for firmer ground and I do not wish to discourage him. I am very happy to give him the assurance that, for all future times, should we be minded to introduce similar provision for future Finance Bills, we will always quote as our precedent that which was set in 1995 to 1996. He can therefore rest assured that no new precedent is being created.
	I sense that we are winning the argument, so I am happy without further ado to commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.

SINGLE ROOM RULE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Simon Thomas: Many people outside the House find it difficult to understand how we can find half an hour to discuss the toe clippings of activities in this House and not debate the real issues that our constituents face. Nevertheless, I am grateful to have an extra three minutes or so to discuss the case of my constituents, the Rev. and Mrs. John and Stella Celia. I am grateful to the Minister for being present to respond to the debate. I look forward to hearing his response. My constituents' case highlights something that is common in the experience of many disabled people in the United Kingdom and serves as a salient example of why a particular regulation needs to be changed, and perhaps of why many benefit regulations need to be reviewed in the light of the progress that we have made towards disability equality and against disability discrimination in the past few years.
	The Rev. John Celia suffered a brain stem stroke some four years ago. Before then, he was a very well-known personality. He gave advice to the previous Conservative Government on the issue of cults. His charity, a Christian charity, was heavily involved in rescuing people from cults and fighting the indoctrination of extreme religious cults. He therefore gave hugely to the civic and religious life of this country. Indeed, on the day when he suffered his stroke, his ill fortune was announced on national television, such was his status at the time. His wife, Stella, has given him sterling support and has herself worked in the community for many years. For 20 years, both of them have worked and dedicated their lives to their charity and the work in which they have engaged.
	Their work continues. Despite his disability, John Celia is now a volunteer in the local day centre in Aberystwyth, and Stella, Mrs. Celia, has just become a trained magistrate. I welcome her to the JPs' bench in Ceredigion, where I am sure she will make an enormous contribution with her experience.
	So these two people have contributed greatly to society over many years. I say that to the Minister not to distinguish between some sort of deserving and undeserving disabled person in respect of the regulations, but to underline the deep dissatisfaction that some people feel when, after giving many years of service, they find that the regulations and Government attitudes are hardening against them because of some ill fortune that they have suffered because of illness or disabilities.
	Many people who may be healthy and fit now, such as ourselves, do not realise just how debilitating suffering disease or disability can be, not because of the disability itself, but because of all the obstacles that seem to appear from bureaucracy and government in the face of it.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Simon Thomas: A Government who promised to restore dignity to disabled people seem to have achieved very little in practical terms. We must judge our society by the way in which we treat the worst off and the poorest within it, and the case of the Rev. and Mrs. Celia highlights that.
	Their case turns on housing benefit entitlement. More than two years ago, they were advised by their general practitioner on medical grounds to move from their one-bedroomed house to a two-bedroomed house. The stroke that John had suffered made his medical needs intensive. His main carer is his wife, and their GP felt that it was better that they should not necessarily share a bedroom at night, so that his wife could have a decent night's sleep. John's rest is very disturbed and he does not necessarily have a good night's sleep, but it is important that his main carer, his wife, is able to do so. Thousands of married people must be in a similar position whereby one or both have become disabled and have specific medical reasons for not sharing a bedfor example, because of medical equipment.
	As the Minister will know, under housing benefit regulations a rent officer can give a rent judgment only on the basis that a married couple should occupy a one-bedroomed property. There is no leeway or discretion in that. People who are married must be judged as though they occupy a one-bedroomed property. Those who have to occupy a two-bedroomed property for medical reasons or for reasons of disability have to meet the extra rent that may be payable because they will not get full housing benefit to cover it. As Mrs. Celia told me when I first met them two years ago, they would be better off divorced and living in sin, which is a bit much to expect from the Rev. and Mrs. Celia.
	At the moment, they pay 85 per week in rent for a two-bedroomed house in the wilds of Ponterwyd outside Aberystwyth. That is not an awful lot these days for a two-bedroomed house in Ceredigionin fact, it is a little on the cheap side. The rent recently went up by 10previously, at 75 a week, it was very reasonable. They receive 18.50 a week as a discretionary housing payment, which used to be called the severe hardship payment. That is in recognition of the fact that they have strong needs and deserve a two-bedroomed house. The payment is controlled by the local authority, and it can stop at any time if the local authority runs out of funds for it. The couple have already received at least five payments, which is highly unusual in my experience. I once served on a local authority panel that judges such payments, and I never knew of anyone who had received five payments. They were good enough to suggest that it would not have happened had it not been for my advocacy. In fact, it is simpler than thatthe local authority recognises that their case screams out for some measure of justice within housing regulations and has given them every assistance that it can, five or six times now, by providing a discretionary housing payment. However, the most recent letter received by the couple clearly states that this must be the last time that such a payment can be made.
	Two letters illustrate the situation in which the Rev. and Mrs. Celia find themselves. On 11 July 2001about a year agothey received a letter from Ceredigion county council's finance department regarding their housing benefit. It said that the total income for benefit purposes was 126.15 and that the weekly eligible rentthat is, the rent upon which the housing benefit is basedwas 60 a week.
	This year, on 13 June, they received a similar letter, which again set out that their total income for benefit purposes was 128.30. It has increased by 2.15 in a year. However, their weekly eligible rent is 51.40. That means that the Rev. and Mrs. Celia's rent entitlement has decreased by 8.50 a week while their income has gone up by only 2.15 a week. There is no justice in that. How can there be justice in a decrease in rent entitlement for the same property in one year when income has increased only slightly? The justification is that rent has been reassessed in the area. I fail to understand how rents have decreased in a year when house prices in Ceredigion, especially in rural areas, have increased substantially.
	There is a problem about the way in which housing rents are calculated and the way in which the valuation officer works. Perhaps that is wider than the scope of tonight's debate, but it is pertinent. The housing valuation officer takes the highest, lowest and middle rent in an area and calculates the average. It is not a serious study of genuine rent levels in an area. Perhaps that accounts for the perception of decline in rents. For example, one of the properties that the valuation officer used for his re-evaluation was a three-bedroomed house that was available at 42 a week. The reason for that was that the farmer was letting it to his daughter. No wonder the rent was 42 a week. Some of the property rents are crazy.
	The Rev. and Mrs. Celia's income has increased by 2.15 a week but their housing benefit has decreased by 8.50 a week. They have been forced to meet the difference from their pockets. As Mr. Micawber said, the difference is between happiness and misery. The Rev. and Mrs. Celia are in an increasingly desperate position, whereby their income is considerably less than it was two or three years ago compared with their rent. It would be easy to contrast their position with that of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, who live in Kensington palace or perhaps even the Deputy Prime Minister with his access to an RMT cheap flat. That would not be irrelevant but I do not want to make such a comparison until we treat disabled people with a modicum of respect. In particular, we should consider the housing benefit regulations and ensure that they do not discriminate against disabled people.
	As the Minister knows, the relevant order is the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997. That is simply an update of the 1987 order, and it did not change anything. The Child Poverty Action Group stated in a letter to me that the order did not reflect advances in views about the needs and rights of people with disabilities. That is true. The order appears increasingly to go against the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
	The Rev. and Mrs. Celia would probably not have a case under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Section 59 states:
	Nothing in this Act makes unlawful any act done . . . in pursuance of any enactment; or . . . in pursuance of any instrument made by a Minister of the Crown under any enactment; or . . . to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by a Minister of the Crown . . . by virtue of any enactment.
	It is clear that actions by Ministers of the Crown are exempt from the 1995 Act. That needs review.
	A briefing that I received for the debate from the Disability Rights Commission recognises that we are considering part of a wider problem of statutory duty exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act. In 1999, the disability rights taskforce said that that should be changed. It recommended that statutory bodies should be under the same obligations as other service providers under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Government have agreed to that in principle. When will that happen? It has been suggested that we shall have a new disability Bill, which may be announced in the Queen's Speech. Will that happen? Is that how the Government intend to deal with the position of people as the Rev. and Mrs. Celia?
	The Child Poverty Action Group is interested in the effect of regulations on disabled people such as the Rev. and Mrs. Celia. Indeed, it is keen that they should be a test case under the Human Rights Act 1998 to ascertain whether section 2 of the 1997 order can stand up in court.
	The Rev. and Mrs. Celia do not have access to the funds necessary to bring a test case; nor do they necessarily want to do so. They certainly want to take forward this debate with the Minister, however, and I hope that he will respond to some of the issues that they have raised with me and with the Child Poverty Action Group.
	It has been suggested that article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which outlaws a discriminating manner, or article 8, which relates to a person's home, family or private life, could be used to protect people such as the Rev. and Mrs. Celia. It is surely detrimental to a disabled person's home life to discriminate against them on the basis of their medical condition, yet that is what the present housing benefit regulations seem to do.
	I have to say to the Minister as an aside, albeit an important one, that there is also a religious discrimination aspect to this matter. I understand that orthodox Jews are forbidden under Mosaic law from sharing a bed with their wives during menstruation. That is an orthodox tenet of faith that would underline a religious need for the recognition in legislation of two bedrooms for married couples. The blanket application of the rule that married people must share a bedroom must, therefore, fly in the face of the needs of disabled people, the needs of people with strong medical grounds for separate bedrooms and of the religious needs of strict orthodox Jews.
	In local government terms, the Government seem to have fettered their discretion. They have painted themselves into a corner, from which they cannot respond to people's genuine needs. In local government terms, that would be ultra vires. In central Government terms, it is not, but it is open to challenge. The order that was made in 1997 states:
	The Secretary of State may by order require rent officers to carry out such functions as may be specified in connection with housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy.
	The use of the word may makes it clear that the Secretary of State has discretion as to the form of order that he might make, and it is surely a fundamental principle of public lawand particularly of the Human Rights Act 1998that a Secretary of State must exercise such discretion in a lawful manner. I suggest that the discretion that the Secretary of State is currently exercising under the order is unlawful under the Human Rights Act and certainly discriminatory, and that it needs to be reviewed.
	The Disability Rights Commission takes a similar view. In a submission to me, it states that the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1987and the subsequent 1997 orderconstitutes indirect, unfair discrimination against the Rev. Celia. The Commission believes that stating the eligibility of a married couple to claim benefit on the basis of having a shared bedroom places the Rev. Celia, and other disabled people in similar circumstances, at a clear disadvantage if, for a reason relating to a disability, a married couple are advised to sleep in separate bedrooms. The Commission wishes to pursue this matter in the review of legislation that it is currently undertaking.
	The Child Poverty Action Group, Shelter, Age Concern and Help the Aged all agree with the Rev. and Mrs. Celia'sand myanalysis of this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's justification of this position. We have to remember that 50 per cent. of disabled people have an income of less than half that of the general population, so there is a double discriminatory whammy here. These people are told that they cannot have recognition of their true medical needs, or needs based on their disability under housing benefit regulations. In addition, they are penalised financially under those regulations, which places them further down the financial pecking order in society.
	The central issue is this: we all know that every order, regulation and Bill that comes before the House bears an undertaking from the Minister concerned that it meets the obligations set out in the Human Rights Act 1998. That is now enshrined in our constitutional procedures. This is important; I have seen several challenges to Ministers across the Dispatch Box as to whether a Bill really meets our obligations under the Act. Ministers are called to account by saying, Yes, it does and by coming to the Floor of the House and justifying their position.
	I want to ask the Minister whether he would sign the 1997 order now, in the light of the experience of the last few years in relation to the way in which people are discriminated against in society, and to the way in which disabled people suffer discrimination. The order might have suited the times in 1987, and we might just have got away with it in 1997, but, in post-Human Rights Act times, I can see no justification for it. I believe that it is flawed and cannot stand up to a challenge under the Human Rights Act.
	I should like the Minister to respond to that. I should like him to respond to the comment by the Disability Rights Commission that the rule constitutes indirect unfair discrimination against my constituents. I should like him to respond to the recommendation of the disability taskforce that the Government's actions should be within the remit of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I should like him to say when statutory bodies will be brought within that remit, and I should like him to explain to my constituents how he expects them to live on an ever-decreasing income while making an ever-increasing contribution to rent.

Malcolm Wicks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on initiating the debate on behalf of his constituents. I listened to his speech with great interest. I acknowledge the important contribution that the Rev. Celia and his wife have made to the national and the local community in recent years, and I am sorry about the position in which they now find themselves.
	I shall stick to the main pointhousing benefitalthough the hon. Gentleman's speech ranged fairly widely. I should welcome an opportunity to discuss with him, on another occasion, the Government's policies on disability and a policy for carers. I think our record will stand any assessment, and I have an interest as a sponsor of the Bill that became the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. However, I want to concentrate on the key subject of housing benefit. Let me begin by explaining our policy on the benefit in relation to private sector tenants, and explaining why we have rules such as the size criteria.
	Unlike social housing, the deregulated private rented sector is not subject to any internal rent controls. It is essential that we exercise control over housing benefit expenditure, so that the needs of people receiving benefit are balanced against those of taxpayersindeed, those of the wider community. Surely it is a fundamental principle that people receiving housing benefit should not have their rent met in full if the level exceeds the broadly average rent level for an appropriately sized property in the area where they live.
	Rent officers play an important part in the administration of housing benefit in the deregulated private rented sector. In carrying out his or her functions, the rent officer will make a determination based on certain criteria. He or she may make two or more determinations on a particular decision if those criteria apply to the same property. One is the size-related rent, which is the main subject of this debate.
	The size criterion works like this. If a claimant lives in a property that exceeds the defined size criteria for his household, the rent officer must determine a rent for a similar tenancy of the appropriate size for that household in the vicinity. By vicinity we mean the immediate surrounding area. The defined criteria provide for one bedroom per couple and one for each single person over 16. The rules also state that two childrenunder 16of the same sex should share a bedroom, as should two children of different sexes under 10. Any child who does not come into those categories is allowed his or her own bedroom. We also allow the household to have up to three living rooms, depending on how many people live in it. A one, two, or three-person household can have one living room, four people can have two, and three are allowed when there are more than four people in the household. We pay some attention to household circumstances.
	The rules are set out in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997, which covers England and Wales, and the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Scotland) Order 1997.
	The rent officer has no discretion to alter the size criteria for any particular casefor example, where, due to health reasons, a husband and wife would find it difficult to share the same bedroom. That could, as in the case of Rev. Celia and his wife, result in a shortfall in housing benefit where the property exceeds the size criteria.
	In such casesit is an important pointdiscretionary housing payments are available. Indeed, that was acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman. Those are free-standing paymentsthey are not payments of housing benefit or council tax benefitthat can be made at the discretion of the local council where the claimant has a shortfall in housing benefit or council tax benefit and requires further help with rent or council tax.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, an overall cash limit is set on the amount that local authorities may spend on discretionary housing payments in any one year, and we contribute towards that limit. For this year, we have set the national limit at some 50 million: 20 million of that is the Government contribution, leaving 30 million that authorities may spend from their own resources.
	Rev. Celia is receiving discretionary housing payments, as has been acknowledged, although they do not mean that his rent is met in full. I appreciate that that tight definition of the size criteria may seem inflexible but, as I said earlier, in housing benefitas is perhaps always the case, sadly, with public expenditurewe must balance the needs of claimants with taxpayers' interests.
	It would clearly be irresponsible to have no limit on the number of rooms in any given property for which housing benefit is paid, and to do so would put claimants at an unfair advantage perhaps vis--vis their working peers, who might not be able to afford to live in larger properties. There is an issue of equity that we must allow for in this area of housing and social security policy.
	Having said that, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said. We need robust rules for housing benefit, but that does not mean that we do not listen to constructive argument, or that we are inflexible, and I can see how the situation faced by Rev. Celia and his wife is a particularly difficult one.
	In balancing our sensitivity and concerns about the individual with a sickness or disability, we need to recognise, perhaps with equal force, as the hon. Gentleman has done, the needs of the carer, in this case the reverend's wife. In these situations, we need the carer to have a proper night's sleep and to be looked after in all sorts of appropriate ways. Therefore, although I cannot make any promises immediately to the hon. Gentleman, I have asked my officials, with whom I discussed the matter today, to re-examine the size criteria rules to see whether, in the circumstances before the House, with which I have much sympathy, the rules can be changed to accommodate this sort of situation. We will need to exercise care to ensure that we do not open housing benefit to abuse, with perhaps a large number of people claiming that they would rather have a second bedroom, but we will review the rules nevertheless.
	If change is possible, we will consult, as would be our normal practice, the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations in the normal way before laying the necessary legislation before the House.

Simon Thomas: On that point, I am very pleased to hear what the Minister is saying. I accept his point that we do not want to drive a cart and horses through the rules. We do not want people to claim snoring or some other spurious reason, but Rev. Celia is on invalidity care benefitthe long-term rate. He is on disability living allowance, higher care allowance and mobility allowance. Where high disability pensions and benefits are paid to such individuals, it is clear that they have true disability needs. Those are the cases where the Minister might find some flexibility in a new set of rules.

Malcolm Wicks: If we can make progressI stress ifestablishing such criteria would be important in our deliberations.
	I should make it clear that Rev. Celia's property is, in our judgmentthis may be a matter of controversyrelatively expensive for the locality, although I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about locality rates. The fact that Rev. Celia's benefit is restricted is in line with our policy that housing benefit should not cover in full rents that exceed the broadly average rent for an appropriately sized property in the same area. Even if the size criteria were to be modified, it is unlikely that Rev. Celia and his wife would have their full rent met, although his housing benefit entitlement would rise.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue. It is when we judge social policies against the hard reality of our constituents' experience that we are sometimes able to make better policy and better public administration. I have found this to be a good opportunity to consider these matters.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Rev. and Mrs. Celia had judged at one stage that should they ever live in sinof course they never wouldthey might be better off. Our social security regulations, as always, understand that point. I assure the hon. Gentlemanan assurance that Rev. and Mrs. Celia will want to hearthat they would be no better off living in sin under our no-nonsense social security regulations. Whatever crises the churches face in our modern society, this is not a temptation that we are able to place before them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.